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.

The Australian Public Service; working with us...?

To-day is Day One of the brand, spanking, shiny new Rudd Labor Government. From here the work begins. Now we know who the ministers and parliamentary secretaries are as well as those with any form of leadership responsibility. We know who are the political drivers, movers and shakers that we, Australian voters, elected.

But there is a layer of decision-making and moving and shaking below them whom we do not elect. These are the senior executives of the Australian Public Service.

The motto of the Australian Public Service Commission is working with you - but do they? Do they always? They are responsible to their political masters - but not to us. They know nothing of having to go out into the electorate and face the music. They are insulated from that.

By the time a senior executive in the Australian Public Service has reached his/her exalted position quite a few skills and defensive mechanisms have been learned. They have learned how to snow ministers, defend their positions, dodge blame, pass bucks, and cleverly word documents and legislation.

One of the reasons why the British TV comedy, Yes Minister, was such a success is because it reflects - and not necessarily with exaggeration - reality: the reality of parliaments and the public and civil service within the Westminster system of government.

In Miss Eagle's experience, governments come to power with a slateful of promises to implement. These promises, in the best of all possible worlds, have been developed by community consultation and lobbying from their own constituencies such as party branches, business or worker organisations. But, if a government has any measure of longevity, these commitments are exhausted within one three year term at least; and, if not, by half way through the second term.

One of the lessons from the Hawke period of government is that branches and party forums were sat upon. There could be no public voice let alone dissent. The solemn and hard facts were that input from party branches and forums dried up. Policy input from the bottom up virtually disappeared. This is likely to be repeated under Rudd.

What then happens is this. The reforming government gets its slateful of promises put to bed and dealt with. Government then turns around to see what is next to keep the policy ball rolling and the body politic interested and paying attention.

There is no difficulty finding what is next: there is the agenda of the non-elected senior executives of the Australian Public Service. They have a full to over-flowing slate of policy suggestions, dear Minister!

Australians learned for themselves what a difference a head of department makes when Whitlam took the reins of government in 1972 but still had a public service with a history of and symbiosis with 23 years of Liberal Party government. Adjustments then began over time in the public service which has lead to its clear (rather than obscured) politicisation.

Part of this has been the move to short term contracts which, to some of us, has meant that the senior executive service can not always pride itself on giving impartial advice to government without fear or favour.

Miss E has not the time or space to give instance after instance within the tenure of the Howard Government but Miss E suggests a detailed examination of Immigration, Defence and Attorney-General's would keep you busy for quite a long year, dear Reader.

Rudd has come out of the Australian Public Service. He held the most senior position in the Queensland Public Service under the Goss Government. He certainly has not made the mistakes of the incoming Whitlam government. He gives no public appearance of rushing to judgment on senior executive appointments although detailed scrutiny finds some ripples on the water.

Peter Shergold is still in place as Head of the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He has made it clear he wishes to leave the APS and his history makes it clear that he would not be a boon companion to the incoming government. However, Shergold is a public service professional and there is little doubt he will provide sound transitional service to the Rudd/Gillard team. Ken Henry in Treasury seems, at this stage, in little danger. He, too, is professional and has, at times, dissented from his political master, Peter Costello. It will be interesting to see how Wayne Swan manages Henry's advice.

But the departments that Miss E will watch with interest are:

1. Gillard's superportfolio of education, industrial relations and workforce participation which she sees as, virtually, a department of productivity
2. Immigration - can the culture really be changed?
3. Defence - will the senior executive service throw up talent appropriate to the extraordinary political leadership now in place
4. Attorney-General - it would be good to see true Labor traditions shining through the A-G portfolio in a manner comparable at Federal level with the manner in which Rob Hulls in Victoria has managed that state's A-G portfolio. It is necessary to counteract the stealth and development of pro-terrorism responses coming from the ghostly Philip Ruddock.

And Miss Eagle is also waiting to see the colour of the Rudd government's money on social inclusion. What will it mean in practice?

In fact, what will public service appointments within the senior executive service mean for the Rudd government and what will be measure of its service to the Australian people?

Rudd-Gillard Response to Howard's IR Policy

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?

Howard put the fear of Hell Fire into Bill?

Miss Eagle was not clear on the role of John Howard in the Bill Heffernan's Julia Gillard comments. Here is an article from The Age printed in full because it clarifies Howard's role - and Miss Eagle loves Kate Lundy's remarks. Please note Heffernan's vile remarks on the celibacy of Catholic priests. Now many people take issue with the celibate priesthood of the Catholic Church, but to make your point like this? Vile Bill Heffernan Vile (punctuate according to taste)! More evidence of his character.

Howard forces Senator's apology
Brendan Nicholson, Ben Doherty and Andrew Darby - May 3, 2007

BLUNTLY spoken Liberal MP Bill Heffernan has apologised to deputy ALP leader Julia Gillard for suggesting that she was not suited to be deputy prime minister because she chose not to have children.
The man dubbed John Howard's "boundary rider" got a blast from the Prime Minister after he insisted on standing by a comment he made last year that Ms Gillard had no idea what life was about because she was "deliberately barren".
"I won't walk away from that," Senator Heffernan told The Bulletin.
"One of the great understandings in a community is family, and the relationship between mum, dads and a bucket of nappies."
The comment about Ms Gillard drew a barrage of flak from Labor's ranks, and strong criticism from Mr Howard and ministers clearly annoyed about the extent to whichit drew attention from their attack on Labor's industrial relations policy.
The question of whether people married and had children was entirely a matter for them, Mr Howard said. "I don't approve of those sort of remarks, and I made that very clear.
"Julia Gillard's life is her business, and she has a right to live it according to what she thinks is appropriate."
Labor MP Kate Lundy said that if controversial Muslim cleric Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali had made such a remark, the Prime Minister would have been the first to criticise him.
Treasurer Peter Costello said it was wrong to comment on a person's decision to have children or not.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd said he believed Mr Howard was a decent man and he must pull Senator Heffernan into line over the outlandish comment.
Senator Heffernan had also repeated his observation that priests should be allowed to marry because they, "like the rest of us, wake up with a horn at four in the morning".
Mr Howard called the senator to tell him his Gillard remark was out of order and that he should apologise immediately.
Mr Heffernan's written apology was prompt.
"I apologise to Julia Gillard and anyone else who was offended for my completely inappropriate and insensitive remarks," he said.
Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella said there was no outrage from Labor women when an ALP candidate made a similar suggestion about her fitness for Parliament during the 2004 campaign.

No real contrition, no real job - resign Bill

Senator Bill Heffernan - with horns

Bill Heffernan has apologised. This morning Miss Eagle heard his apology on radio. His voice sounded off-hand as he said "I apologise to all the people that's offended, so there you go." Gee, Bill. That sounded really sincere and contrite - NOT.

Now Miss E, dear Reader, is all for forgiveness in public life. Miss E has, on occasions, mused on this topic here on this blog. But, dear Reader, there are two types of contrition - perfect and imperfect.

As a practising Catholic, Bill Heffernan would be aware of this.

If these theological niceties escape you, dear Reader, Miss E will come to your rescue.

Perfect Contrition is where the offender is sincerely sorry, remorseful and repentant. The offender sincerely seeks forgiveness, wishes to reform, and seeks to make amends for his or her actions.

Imperfect Contrition is when the reason for the offender's sorrow is fear of Hell Fire.

Bill Heffernan is a serial offender.

And, as Bill Heffernan knows, a priest in the confessional is quite justified in refusing absolution to an offender who continues in his or her way without any attempt at reform.

The words, Bill, are too little too late. Have you called on Julia Gillard in person, cap in hand to apologise and make amends to her? How do you suggest we re-assure ourselves of your sincerity, Bill, when so many people have been on the receiving end of your offensive tongue and vile actions?

And, Bill, just why did you apologise? Did John Howard chastise you and that was as the Fires of Hell? If John Howard did not chastise you, Bill, why would that have been? Yes, John, if you did not chastise Heffernan, why would that have been?

Senator Heffernan must resign. He is a serial offensive offender. He has brought shame to the public life of Australia. He is a waste of space in the Senate.

Time to go, Bill Heffernan...we don't need to hear from you ever again

Well, dear Reader, do you think the above touched-up photograph is fair political comment?

You see, he's at it again.

Yes, Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan is once again reminding us of his infinite capacity to breach one of the two commandments enjoined upon all Christians and Heffernan is reputed to be a faithful Catholic.

The Second Commandment is commonly known as The Golden Rule. It is "loving your neighbour as yourself".

Bill can't keep his mouth shut. In fact, it appears that he may never have heard of that wise saying which states that if you can't say something good about someone then don't say anything at all.

Now, ordinarily, someone like Bill probably wouldn't get airplay. Bill would never pass as an intellectual. His resources aren't such that they would be a source of power. And it is doubtful whether he could lead legions of followers across a desert. In fact, his comments would probably die for want of oxygen except for one crucial fact. You see, dear Reader, Bill is a good mate of John Howard's and a sort of attack-dog-come-dirt-digger for him.

But Bill is not infallible - and definitely not reliable.

This became clear when he tried single handedly to destroy one of Australia's finest jurists, Michael Kirby. He failed in a major, major way.

You see, Bill has a tendency to unapologetically shoot his mouth off and doesn't give a fig even if it is someone on his own side of politics.

But headlines and attitudes which say that "Bill is just being Bill" won't cut the mustard anymore. Bill's mouth and mind are too despicable for that.

Apologists for Bill from the PM down only show their own lack of ethics, show their own bigotry and bias, and shame Australia and Australians.

Sifting through the "Won't Says"

In to-day's The Age, there is a list of those who refuse to comment or are undeclared in the Beazley-Rudd leadership ballot. Miss Eagle is rushing in where angels - with more wisdom than she - would fear to tread by trying to sift through the names.

Arch Bevis

Arch is aligned with the Right. Unlikely to deviate from Beazley. May be keeping quiet in the hope of maximizing his own interests.

Mark Bishop

Mark is a Shoppie. He's also from WA - just like Kim. His vote is with Beazley

Trish Crossin

Trish is on the Left. Trish and husband Mark had strong union involvement on the left although Mark is no longer a union official. He is the Director of the Northern Territory's WorkSafe. People with strong union affiliations will be seriously considering their situation because Trade Unions will be waying up how a Rudd-Gillard campaign will affect the fight against the Howard Government's industrial relation laws. Miss Eagle has also heard that women on the Left aren't so enamoured of Gillard. Miss Eagle's guess is that Trish will stick with the status quo.

Chris Evans

Chris's union affiliations are on the Left with the Miscos and the Firies. But he's from WA and blood is probably thicker than water. This is hard to pick but, when the chips are down, Miss Eagle gives this one to Beazley.

John Faulkner

Miss Eagle's hero: looks like Clark Kent but is the Superman of Estimates Committees. Picking his vote will be like deciding whether an Easter Island statue is looking happy or sad. Faulkner is on the Left. He sent himself to the back bench when Latham became leader and has not re-emerged. Does he want to come back to the front bench? With whom will he deal? How does he see his own future? All these questions and more are conundrums. Miss Eagle cannot pick this one but thinks Beazley could collect.

Harry Jenkins

Miss Eagle is a don't know on this - but Jenkins father and son have been around a while like Beazley father and son. Miss Eagle would put this vote in the Beazley ballot box.

Duncan Kerr

Kerr is on the Left - but the outspoken Tasmanian could go either way. Difficult to pick. Self-interest could be the influential feature of where he puts his vote.

Catherine King

Catherine is Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury; Wayne Swan Shadow Treasurer. Ministers and private secretaries are not guaranteed to be of the same stripe but this time there could be a coalescence of views - particularly in view of self-interest. Miss Eagle gives this one to Beazley.

Carmen Lawrence

West Australian. Nuff said. A Beazley vote.

Kirsten Livermore

This one will go to Rudd. Queensland politics (non-AWU) will influence this one.

Jan McLucas

Shadow Minister for Ageing, Carers and Disabilities. On the Left. Miss Eagle's nose tells her this will go to Beazley.

Bob McMullan

Miss Eagle would have put this non-factional warrior in the moderate, rational category until recent years when he has been known to dummy spit and display a large measure of self-interest. Because of the last characteristic, this vote will be hard to pick but chances are it will go to Beazley.

Sunday 3 Dec 2006: McMullan has declared for Rudd

Kerry O'Brien

On the Left. Strong Trade Union connections. This will go to Beazley.

Helen Polley

On the Right. AWU connections. Another in the Beazley ballot box.

Robert Ray

Undeclared? Where would anyone expect Robert Ray's cards to be? Only close to his chest. Beazley.

Nick Sherry

Another in Labor's father and son tradition. Strong Trade Union connections. Beazley.

Warren Snowdon

Wazza is from the NT and on the Left. Large Aboriginal constituency. Who's going to do it for Wazza (self-interest will count for quite a bit) and who's going to do it for his electorate? Beazley vacated the ground on the Wik issue back in the late 90s and left the running to Dazza Melham and Wazza - so why wouldn't his vote go to Beazley.

Glenn Sterle

Ho hum! Another West Australian, another Beazley vote.

Labor turmoil: a case of needed change and a defence of the past and its people

Now its on again, turmoil and all, as the so-called Dream Team of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard challenges Kim Beazley, the current Leader, for leadership of the ALP prior to a 2007 Federal election.

Miss Eagle wonders about the over-statement of the Rudd-Gillard, Right-Left partnership as a Dream Team. However, Miss Eagle recalls that, after years of corrupt National Party government in Queensland, a major factor undergirding the successful ALP campaign which resulted in the election of Wayne Goss as Premier of Queensland 17 years ago to this very day on 2 December, 1989, was the partnership of right and left with the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and the Australian Metal Workers Union (AMWU).

This partnership shocked people - not least those within the ALP - and spelled the beginning of the end for Peter Beattie in his role as State Secretary of the Queensland ALP and meant some wilderness years for Beattie on his way to the Queensland Parliament, years on the backbench because of his rivalry with Goss, and now his success story as Queensland Premier. On this pragmatic tide, Wayne Swan - currently, Kim Beazley's Shadow Treasurer - became Qld State Secretary of the ALP. This was another rung on the Qld ALP's ladder of success. Without this right-left pragmatism, it is unlikely that Goss would have got to government and, almost certainly, not with the landslide success delivered to him in 1989.

This is something that Big Bill Ludwig, AWU heavyweight and powerbroker-kingpin in Queensland, should remember. Bill should remember in calling his factional Federal MPs to heel that he was unable to successfully call time in 1991 when Keating defeated Bob Hawke. Ludwig stuck doggedly to Hawke when the time for change had clearly come. Bill and his son, Senator Joe Ludwig, ought to remember this. Ludwig Senior and his AWU shearer mates in western Queensland stuck doggedly to Old Guard Labor tickets when Peter Beattie was reforming the ALP in Queensland in the early '80s and issuing reform tickets. Bill's mentality has not altered. Dogged loyalty can be an admirable thing but not to include yourself as a force of change and progress is not.

Bill, let the hounds off the leash in Queensland so that they can make their own decisions.

You would serve the nation well in doing this.

Women can have balls

In the long, long ago when Miss Eagle was a union official at the Australian Workers Union (AWU) in North Queensland where she was one of only two female AWU officials in the whole of Australia - and, at one stage, the only one - I used to tell my boss (who was great, by the way) that, while the blokes in the AWU all had penises, I was the only one with balls. Working at the coal face of the working-class patriarchy, I had to have balls. How else could I have survived?

It seems that, as she writes about Julia Gillard, Kaz Cooke has come to a similar conclusion. Women - while being penis-less - can have balls. Whatever the blokes and Bill Ludwig thinks - Julia is leadership material. And she is acting like it. This week it was Australian Story. Of course the blokes of the ALP right (girls are not leadership material in the faction either) are not going to sit idly by and see the leadership of the ALP go to someone on the left - irrespective of gender. So Bill had to get nasty and personal - which he can do rather well. The master of the comb-over had a go at Julia about her hair. Well, what else could be expected? I have only known Bill to support one woman in her career and that had overtones.

Interesting this week was Bill Shorten's deft handling of Bill Ludwig's boots and all attitude to a single site agreement with Qantas moving some of its maintenance to Brisbane. Shorten managed to praise Ludwig, hose him down publicly, and shift criticism to Qantas in a short space of time. Is this why they refer to Bill Shorten as a future leader?