“God help us all”, indeed c.w. It never ceases to amaze me how these days blatant mendacity and dissembling are rewarded . And the responsibility for this not only lies with an apathetic public, but also with a weak, unquestioning (and largely compliant) fourth estate. And, of course, an ineffective Opposition.

The most incisive comment I‘ve seen on Beazley was in the Daily Flute. It was a cartoon in the style of an auction. The opener was “Lot 1. Draconian measures for the war on terror, what am I bid.” Howard says “ We’ll make some people disappear, and scare voters”. And Beazley’s response is “Whatever Howard bids but in a more verbose way” Says it all really! Perhaps one of the few things Latham got right was his plea to give Julia Gillard a chance. She appears the best of the current batch.

It all seems to be unraveling for George the dumber, so maybe there’s hope yet.

While it goes against the grain, since I too think Beazley could be exercising more leadership and creativity than he is, I must utter some words in his defence.

Basically remember that the context is particularly difficult to the ALP. Not taking a more civil libertarian position is infuriating to Labor supporters of a certain ilk but the bulk of the voters they need to reach to win an election (about 8-10% of electorate) understand little about such issues and respond well to the pressing of the terror button, as well as other buttons with racist undertones. Howard is the rat who loves to push these buttons and has admitted in his clash with Georgio that his political success is dependent on it. There is a percentage of Liberal supporters who are actually liberal but alienating them is not much of worry strategically to Howard. Beazley is the one who is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
To take a better position morally Beazley would have to take a difficult strategic position. That of opposing parts of the bill (the fruit loop authoritarian ones of police wet dreams), while supporting others. This position can't be done in a sound bite and would thus open up the waffle accusation.

Which is also unfair I suspect, being more an expression of frustration at Beazley's apparent failure to land a punch against the conservative class warriors. But if you want waffle combined with deceit and rat cunning just listen to the crap coming out of the mouths of Howard, Andrews and Ruddock around the anti-terror nonsense and also "workchoices"

That’s not to say Beazley couldn’t actually try and show some leadership and educate the electorate about this. However, he seems to have decided that he can only fight on one front and the better one, and possibly more important one, is workplace reform that will return Australia to British 19th century conditions with extra added employer benefits. For example the state actually policing, with fines and jail terms, the right of employers to keep employees in the dark about what they are paying others, is just one doozey in the Christmas presents Howard has rolled out. You shalt take an AWA on pain of unemployment, and you shalt not disclose what is in it to anyone.

A good discussion and critique of Beazley's position re anti terror laws can be found at the New Matilda. See especially Kirk McKenzie’s article.

tf says:

But if you want waffle combined with deceit and rat cunning just listen to the crap coming out of the mouths of Howard, Andrews and Ruddock around the anti-terror nonsense and also "workchoices".

First, have a look at what Ross Gittins of the SMH has to say about "WorkChoices" (Howard's words not mine !!)

We had scare campaigns, similar in tone to tf's, over the GST, the introduction of EBA's, and so on. You can claim its all lies, damn lies and statistics, but if the aim was to get more (as an absolute number) Australians working, then these changes did work.

The problem this cause the opponents of these changes (of which I am one, ESPECIALLY THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS) is that we all get tarred with the brush of scare monger...

PS the scare campaigns are not limited to opponents of the Coalition either. I'm old enough to remember (20 or 30 years ago) Fraser (or was it Howard ?) saying that we'd have to hide our money under the bed if the ALP got in.

It’s a solid piece of devil’s advocacy by Gittens and buys into the neo-classical economic justification that is being pushed by the government, that it is about creating jobs. There are two issues here, is there much proof that giving more power to employers to drive down wages, or drive up output from workers for the same wages, will increase jobs? The answer is there is not, and interestingly there is no provision in the actual policy to try and test or establish it. It is simply a (convenient) article of faith.

Second, is it the case that any job is a good job? Gitten’s is positioned within the argument that it is, especially if the dole exists as buffer to stop the minimum wage from falling too much lower. Conservative economist Peter Saunders has argued something similar but tougher, asserting that wages should be allowed to fall as much as possible to get people into jobs. That these jobs would be hard and scantily paid would be offset by welfare payments.

There are three problems at least with this (a) welfare would be effectively subsidising employers, in terms of tax take this means money being taxed from predominantly workers to subsidise employment and profits by these employers; (b) the welfare benefits are a matter of political will, relying on the dole (which is already barely sufficient to keep people afloat in society) to keep minimum wages up ignores the political pressure that will build to lower it to allow wages to fall. This will especially be the case during a recession; (c) these arguments are built around a push model of the economy with wages as just another commodity at its centre. It can be argued from both an economic and social justice position that Australia does not need to waste its resources on employers and jobs that are not even capable of providing a reasonable wage that allows a satisfactory capacity to live a full life in our society. We do not want or need an underclass of working poor, nor do we need to subsidise and support employers who need this group to make profits. Moreover in economic terms increasing welfare and wages (if done with an eye on macro-economic capacity and fiscal responsibility) can drive up demand and drive up pressure for increased productivity via capital investment or better workplace organisation.

As to the draconian aspects of “workchoices”, it hardly requires a “scare campaign”. Aimed firmly at allowing employers more control over workers and their conditions, and at pushing out unions as players in industrial relations, it provisions are often draconian. It inhibits and all but outlaws: freedom of association in relation to industrial relations; the right to take industrial action (technically allowed but governed by such power and regulation that it would rarely be permitted and would open unions and employees to civil actions if taken or even threatened); the right to collective bargaining; and, explicitly, representation by a union (but not an accountant, or a lawyer, or on the employers side, their IR team). This is a radical change in the balance of power between employees and employers. To assume this will not be reflected over time in relations between them strikes me as naïve. The underlying assumption is that workers are a commodity whose price is simply a matter for the market to decide. The model is people lining up at the factory gate and bidding down for a job. I believe there is already a website in the United States that works on this model, employers post jobs and workers compete to offer the lowest price they will work for.

Then there is the idea of the goodwill of employers, another argument put forward by Gittens. It’s not without truth but again a naïve position of trusting to the good of people rather than providing for removing temptation from those who might not be. The workings of the market are such that if one employer increases their profitability or lowers their prices by driving down wages their competitors will be faced with little choice but to follow. This factor, combined with the provisions in the bill to include not just new jobs but changes in position, including promotion, to shake people lose from the old system, will create a wave of change in Australians’ conditions of life. Some will benefit and some will notice little change. Another group will fall further behind and inequality in our society will grow. Nearly all will be more vulnerable. This last is the main purpose of the bill and reflects the conservatives ideological position of how the world should be, that those who own property and employ workers should hold most of the rights.