Mood:  accident prone

The other day on the 7.30 Report Greg Combet said it was internationally recognised as a human right for labour to collectively organise:

02/05/2007 - Greg Combet discusses industrial relations with Kerry O'Brien

Janet Albrechtsen as a corporate lawyer in thrawl to Big Business there at The Australian has cooked up an incredible cauldron of smear about this human right.

As an ex corporate lawyer I know its all about framing of a debate, and Albrechtsen on whom Alan Jones went to town yesterday morning on 2GB in reliance, has invented a framework right out of ...fairy land. Or perhaps a Lord of the Rings like vision of Mordor run by trolls and goblins from the union.

But like the JRR Tolkien writing method it's all about creating a fantasy and then loading it up with realistic trimmings after that, enticing the reader to forget the original premise is, and has always been, fantasy.

Thus Albrechtsen has written  twice now

 "in a workplace of 1000 workers, if 100 workers turn up to vote and 51 workers vote yes to a collective agreement, that agreement prevails. The vote of 51 workers will bind all 1000 workers". Refer Labor scheme to sell out workers to unions May 8th 2007 cross referencing an earlier story last weekend.

This is such an incredulous scenario one wonders if Albrechtsen has spent time at Mardi Grass in Nimbin: Over 100 arrested at Nimbin Mardi Grass festival. 07/05/2007. ABC ...

Let's just tease out her scenario. The union, the boss, or the workers call a general meeting to discuss their potential level of wage. Is it $25K, $40K, $70K? Will you get redundancy, holiday, sick and other pay loadings or will it all be folded into an AWA and decided that way individual by individual?

How many turn up to such a meeting? Let me guess. Not 50. Not 100. 900 would be more like it.  Money talks and bullsh*t walks. As the old saying goes self interest is always trying and workers WILL attend a meeting in droves based on their hip pocket nerve.

Alan Jones and Janet Albrechtsen have no idea, and what's more a revealingly jaundiced lack of confidence in the culture of democracy in Australia. But even if you think workers lack interest in meeting process per se, you can count on their self interest to motivate that democracy for the sake of their own pay packet. Which is why 50/1000 at a meeting to discuss their pay is a hopelessly vexatious premise.

The fact this laughable scenario has been published twice by The Australia is sad. It is also probably why a now desperate PM Howard, big budget notwithstanding, is going to lose the next federal election, bargaining fee for unions or not. In fact it seems not based on Julie Gillard's reported position front page story in the same paper The Australian a day earlier:

Gillard move likely to enrage unions - The Australian - 7 May 2007

Is it too much to hope that the squawking Parrot and the quacking duck do a bit more home work and real thinking?

Declaration: As a community media practitioner this writer is a member of the Australian Services Union on a greatly discounted rate of $5.80 a month.

Posted by editor at 11:53 AM NZT

Updated: Thursday, 10 May 2007 10:13 AM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

 Picture: a new day dawns after federal budget night signifying something, but what exactly?

 As Prof Ian Lowe of the (Melbourne!?) Conservation Foundation on abc 702 this morning points out there is a big climate change attention deficit in this year's electoral budget. We do like Prof Lowe too.

 

Picture: Call us the perjorative 'Howard hater' if you have to, but it seemed to our eye the 'Prime Miniature' John Howard was looking quite grumpy on TV last night sitting left of his Treasurer Peter Costello. This image only a minute or two in via ABC here . It didn't seem to improve through the 1/2 hour broadcast.

 

This climate change concern echoes Senator Brown (Greens) outrage on the World Today yesterday. But how did Senator Brown get the advance copy of the green segment of the federal budget?  See our theory below.

and note probing on abc coverage last night, missed Laurie Oaks on 9 which 
might be important on this also.

Costello answer being taskforce due to report in a month, and kerry obrien
attacking that Ken Henry in Treasury had a trading scheme in 2003 /4 which
was declined. Ouch.
So its being fed into the election timetable, if at all.
 But what I am wondering is Who leaked the green segment of the budget to the 
Greens with Senator Brown on World Today yesterday with Chris Uhlmann abc?
Here is a scrurillous theory - Howard looked fairly grumpy on the tv last
night. Did Costello's people leak the lack of climate change allocations to
Greens knowing it would cause alot of anger, exposing Howard PM as the one
who held up the show in 2003/4 as per red haired Kerry questioning? To
damage Howard within the Coalition?  A bit of prime ministerial treasurer
tension leveraging Bob Brown?

I wonder. Poor grumpy John Howard. Poor planet.
 
Tom McLoughlin.

Picture: Not Happy John #3, at 22min 57 sec of  the Video On Demand ABC website.

We were responding to this press release on the broadcast list:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hollo, Tim (Sen C. Milne)" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:45 PM
Subject: [Greens-Media] Costello wilfully negligent on climate change


Costello wilfully negligent on climate change

Canberra, Tuesday May 8, 2007  Australian Greens climate change
spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, said Treasurer Costello's 12th
budget demonstrated that he is negligent and reckless when it comes to
climate change.

Senator Milne said "Peter Costello talked tonight of 'the emergence of
climate change' over the next decade. Clearly he has no understanding
that climate change is already biting Australia and the world, and has
been well understood for many years.

"Tonight Mr Costello allocated not one new cent to the development of
clean energy technologies. Not even the Government's favoured solutions
- so-called 'clean coal' and nuclear power - scored a Guernsey.

"Has the Government finally seen the light that these are not 21st
century responses to this massive challenge?

"Surely the absence of any such program makes it clear that the
government's nuclear plans are no more than a wedge against the ALP. If
they were serious about setting up a nuclear power industry in
Australia, the Government would be moving to fund that shift.

"There is no change to the absurd situation that massive subsidies to
the fossil fuel industry swamp the few token efforts that seek to create
the impression of action on climate change.

"$22.3 billion to Auslink, the vast bulk of which is set for roads,
makes a mockery of the $60 million for alternative fuels which Mr
Turnbull reckons will reduce Australia's dependence on oil imports.
Until we see structural change, with support of public transport and
removal of perverse GST and FBT incentives for private car travel,
Australia's greenhouse emissions from transport will continue to
balloon, and our vulnerability to oil depletion will be further
entrenched.

"With no targets, nothing serious for energy efficiency and crumbs for
renewable energy, the fundamentals of a climate change strategy are
still not in place. The patience of Australians must now surely be at an
end."

Contact Tim Hollo on 0437 587 562...........................

Picture: Grumpy PM at 23 min 2 sec

And notice this about Big Business collecting and nourishing their investment in captured Big Parties literally [also covered in critical terms in the Aust Financial Review as well]:

Senate to reveal budget night largesse: Greens

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle has described the Liberal Party's annual
budget night fundraising sessions that occur in Parliament House as a
warp on Australia's democracy, that require a rigorous Senate
investigation

"The lines are inappropriately blurred when a minister can charge to
have drinks with wealthy corporations in one hand and spend Government
money with the other all under the same Parliamentary roof." Senator
Nettle said.

"The NSW Leader of the Opposition has called for an inquiry into
political donations in Macquarie Street, so it's also appropriate for
the Federal Parliament to investigate donations occurring on Capitol
Hill.

 "The Senate needs to address the types of fundraising that can occur in
Parliament House to make sure that the Parliament does not become a
Liberal Party donations festival, given that these parliamentary budget
night dinners now rake over a million dollars for the Liberal Party.

"Recent reports that Ministers charge guests to attend lavish diners at
Parliament house tonight should cause significant concern to those who
care about the transparency of Government.

"Like other people I do not want to see the nation's seat of Government
become little more than a cash register for the Liberal party.

"If the Government hasn't got the guts to ban political donations from
corporations, then they should at least be banned from taking money
within the grounds of Parliament House on the day the Government spends
it - on budget night.

"Australia should catch up to best practice by closing the tills of
Parliament on budget night " Senator Nettle said.

NB Senator Nettle will give notice of a motion this week in the Senate
to establish an inquiry into these matters.

Contact - Kristian Bolwell: 0411638320

Picture: looking forward, eyes swivel at 26 min 17 sec re drought assistance exceptional circumstances (National Party boondoggle?), and again at 28 min 22 sec at mention of the joint strike fighter and retiring in an 'orderly way' the F 1-11, which is widely criticised as a poor budget process in defence circles.

Picture: At 29 min 28 sec

Posted by editor at 9:29 AM NZT

Updated: Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:57 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

We studied contract law in 1983 and corporate law a year or two later and worked for Baker & McKenzie top 10 law sharks in 1990-1.

[Actually we failed our first contract law exam but passed the course, in part because we were in shock at the death of our inventor grandfather Joseph Ford. Being a bit of an emotional cripple at the time we didn't really know how to process the loss of that genuinely kind old guy and got 42 out of 100 in the first semester. Ouch. The only exam we have ever failed in our lives and proving yes perhaps lawyers are people too.]

We haven't done any fresh research but having listened carefully to Prof Ian Ramsey of Melbourned University Staff Profile on ABC 702 before 7 am this morning we can feel some preliminary legal advice coming on.

It all revolves around the law of offer and acceptance: So the private equity barbarians at Airline Partners Australia (APA) have a clause in their offer to buy that asserts a 100% purchase of a shareholding in any partial acceptance to sell a fraction of a shareholding.

But that's just a bald assertion, and indeed sleazy try on, unless it's actually agreed to by the share owner/seller. Who is to say such an offer to buy with such a clause is the one accepted? It actually might be the shareholder has rejected the conditioned offer of APA, and simply made a counter offer to sell to APA to only sell a fraction, which is then accepted by APA to buy the fractional shareholding and only the fraction of shares.

Offer with conditions, rejection and counter offer is just as plausible a scenario and as old as business itself.

It would all turn on the evidence and the reality of the intentions of the multitude of diverse shareholder parties by document, word and conduct etc.

That would be quite a messy litigation of the evidence across many stakeholder parties union, to govt to companies Qantas and APA to investors and likely public insterest folks like Australian Shareholder Association etc with wildly varying interpretations one imagines of individual contracting parties offer and acceptance.

To restate: Anyone can baldly assert conditions in an offer like APA seems to have done. But that's no contract. Anyone can reject such a conditioned offer. It depends what is actually accepted especially if they have in fact declined the conditional offer and made a counter offer to sell only a fraction of shares which is then accepted by APA.

Then consider such a messy litigation with some real legal evidentiary questions to resolve over offer and acceptance taking say 3 years in the NSW Supreme Court, with very willing combatants. Consider the wider political and business context of barely 50% of total shares purchased by APA as pointed out by Treasurer Costello (that there just was not much seller interest), and now very serious allegations of illegal foreign ownership holdings contrary to the sale of Qantas legislation.

No wonder we hear 9 am abc news just now that Aircraft Partners Australia, so called, have raised the legal white flag. Sure enough some smarty in Allens, Bakers or somewhere has reached roughly the same conclusion as here.

Tom McLoughlin, solicitor in NSW

(feedback welcome)

Postscript #1 early 10 May 07: We have since had the benefit of some public commentary from Stephen Mayne founder of crikey.com.au on abc 702 radio with Virginnia Trioli, and secondly an article by crusty Bryan Frith a veteran in the back business pages of Murdoch press (The Australian) earlier this week. Both say the 'partial acceptance full purchase' conditional offer to buy from APA are pretty standard in takeovers.

BUT also especially via Frith, that hedge fund shareholders usually have a swathe of legal entities that they spread their shares, in this case Qantas shares, over. Thus the hedges choreograph which of their legal shells accept and which don't to circumvent an APA conditional full purchase conditional offer to buy. Then add the reality that Foreign Ownership of Qantas legislation has almost certainly been breached during the takeover process, it seems the legals and the politics of any court action by APA fell over before it even started - as much for embarrassment and risk of legal blow back as evidentiary legal problems (if any) over offer and acceptance in contract law as suggested above.

Posted by editor at 11:00 AM NZT

Updated: Thursday, 10 May 2007 9:50 AM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

This cracking story by Stephen Mayne at Crikey.com.au today in subscriber material should be repeated in the public interest and to give him and the ezine their due. Shambolic, and farce are words that seem too kind, indeed:

8. For two months, Qantas has been foreign-owned

Stephen Mayne writes:

It’s all very well for the Qantas board, Peter Costello and various other pundits to now be sticklers for probity, process and the law, but where the hell were they for the past two months when Qantas was clearly majority foreign-owned and in breach of the Qantas Sale Act?

The $11 billion privatisation has been destroyed by a group of foreign hedge funds who were not legally entitled to own such a large chunk of the airline, let alone directly determine its destiny.

Hedge funds have long been regarded as a law unto themselves and on Friday night, before retreating to the Senate Bar, the Macquarie Bank-assembled bidding team decided to vindictively expose the 68-year-old New York billionaire Samuel Heyman as being the man responsible for APA’s failure.

The Saturday papers widely reported that Heyman controlled 10% of Qantas after being briefed by the Macquarie Bank boys who first came up against him when he bought into the London Stock Exchange last year.

But how on earth could Heyman own 10% of Qantas when he never lodged a substantial shareholder notice which is required for all investors with more than 5%? These are the publicly known positions of the largest Qantas shareholders before the 36% held by APA last Thursday night is put back to the original shareholders:

4 May : Credit Suisse 11.73%
30 March : Deutsche Bank 10.66%
22 March : UBS 10.40%

Was Heyman’s stake hidden by some of these foreign investment banks or just flagrantly not declared in breach of Australian law?

Heyman wasn’t legally allowed to buy a 10% stake in Qantas -- let alone largely foreign-controlled hedge funds a collective 40-45% stake -- because the law states that the airline must be majority-Australian-owned.

The Qantas board allowed the law to be flagrantly broken and never said boo about it. The last update on foreign ownership was provided six months ago.

Peter Costello directly controls the Foreign Investment Review Board which should conduct an immediately inquiry into this shambolic situation.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here .

Posted by editor at 4:03 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  irritated

Guboo Ted Thomas RIP stopped the loggers and their bulldozer in the 1970ies on sacred Gulaga Mountain on behalf of his people. I met him a few years ago and he told me "you're on the right track" trying to stop the woodchippers logging our native forest cultural and natural heritage.

This was against the wishes of some pro logging Eden based Aboriginal interests.

Now the loggers are back over the memory of this great warrior for the environment. Maybe the local Blacks have been beaten down to accept it. Maybe the laws under Morris Iemma are so draconian it can't be stopped. But it's still wrong. Very wrong. Shameful.

Guboo would say it if he were alive today, Black or White. Harriet Swift from ChipStop in Bega writes on the weekend as follows:

Logging of compartment 3046 of Bodalla Forest (Gulaga Mountain)  is scheduled to start tomorrow, 7 May. If you are interested in joining the campaign against this logging, see the campaign website at:  http://www.tilbalogging.com

People may recall that this area,  important to the local Aboriginal people, was scheduled for logging a year or so ago, but was deferred until after the election.
harriett

CHIPSTOP campaign against woodchipping the SE forests, PO Box 797 Bega NSW 2550 Australia, http://www.chipstop.forests.org.au

Posted by editor at 10:38 AM NZT

Updated: Monday, 7 May 2007 11:21 AM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  lucky

We feel a certain deja vu looking at the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today.

Big Pete, the Treasurer in black and red trackie daks, on his exercise regime.

Very similar to the colour scheme of you know who - that other Peter, fictional Peter Parker in the Spiderman series of movies. It's a clever and hip mass appeal PR metaphor if we humbly say so ourselves, which we leveraged in our Sunday Talkies image yesterday.

Or it could simply be an echo of Victorian based Essendon AFL football team too. But we like the spidey theory being more broad appeal.

Not surprisingly the talented Andrew Taylor got the image which cracked the front page, with all those subliminal colour code affects to the literally millions of voters who will consume Spiderman 3 over the next weeks and months. The subliminals of modern, strong, good heart, kind, intelligent etc all with our own budget money of course tomorrow night.

This compares with the happy indeed but perhaps more subdued visual imagery of Big Kevin walking with his lovely daughter in bridal white on the weekend. It's the  'sherman tank' of Big Media Big Political clash of the positive visuals and more uplifting than we are used to in political reportage.

Picture: Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd with his 21 year old daughter looking the Australian rose on her big day as pictured in various Sunday press yesterday, this one lifted from the Brisbane Times which from memory is another Fairfax venture, online paper.

Postscript #1: We might be misdirecting ourselves with hyberbolic vanity as to the SMH and treasurer borrowing from our humble micro news site for PR subliminals (though one of our siblings does work there in the PMC (last we heard) not that it has ever done us any good), but still we couldn't help noticing this spidey echo top left corner of the prime cartoon in the Herald next day

Posted by editor at 9:57 AM NZT

Updated: Wednesday, 9 May 2007 8:00 AM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  not sure

Picture: Images from Spiderman 3 trailer: “How long can any man fight the darkeness … before he finds it in himself?” Is our Treasurer “Peter” caught in his own political web and desire for revenge? Will he break free with a heroic budget? Will he get to say “Everyone loves me”. Will he triumph and get the girl … err top job? Or will an evil sand man (John Howard/Kevin Rudd) still destroy all electoral hope? Come see the longest running most expensive Hollywood movie ever made, roughly 5 months duration and $240 billion expenditure. It’s a blockbuster! It could reverse the polls by 10 points or more!

Author’s general introductory note (skip this if you know this regular weekly column):

What happens to talented journalists who work for News Ltd? Does the money and the capitalist greed finally get them in the end? Or do they just get an infected foot and start blathering and missing the obvious?

The cartoon in the Herald covered it so well here:

Indeed The Australian played along with the bury the lead re Heffernan's obscenity here: p4 2/5/07 postage stamp bottom left far corner by Samantha Maiden “Libs stick to barren gibe”. Everyone else went big including Ch10 Meet the Press tv talky today 6/5/07.

No mention of Big Heff dog whistling by their gun commentator Price. That’s quite an omission there Matt.

Which brings us to the tone of intellectual corruption set by the dancing bear Greg Sheridan About Greg Sheridan | Greg Sheridan biography | The Australian also at News Ltd'sThe Australian.

We specifically identified on our news blog here Sheridan's willing compromise of journalistic objectivity by accepting a pro Israel rah rah prize recently: A clear case of bias to one of many geopolitical stakeholders, relevant to subjects he writes about all the time as a foreign affairs and defence specialist. And Sheridan responds in a recent article:

What this is all about is revenge by dancing bear Sheridan pure and simple for Prof Hugh White giving substance to the damning belief of many greens that PM  Howard has a sleazy Strangelove embrace of a nuke weapons future for Australia, under cover of dodgy climate policy, as here: Don't mention the bomb - Hugh White - Opinion - theage.com.au

Lindsay Tanner, sticks with the sledge of Howard’s wind up phone. Pretty smooth, mostly about budget, leans on broadband policy.

Riley Diary – edgy and amusing segment.

Riley – “dishes the dirt” (our headline recently on Tas forests piece).

Very funny based on puppet agro theme, complete with single long eye brow.

Goes big on Heffernan slur. Howard gets testy and smart alec at a presser at the end.

Feature on child custody dispute father with 3 kids in Tasmania.

Oaks interview with Treasurer Costello - this is the main game. Re-elect the government?

Defence – increase re personnel but also equipment. Biggest build up since WW2. Very expensive. State of the art in 4, 5, 6 years time.

Bolt lies about Prof Garnaut view of Stern. Not that “deeply flawed” but that underestimates some factors and over estimates some other.

Replayed at 11.10 am on radio PNN 630 AM band.

Home page is http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/

..................................................

Postscript #1: More media backgrounders:

The Essay Patience and curiosity versus paranoia and fear  by Paul Monk who we still remember from Ursula College (Catholic) residential college at ANU two doors up from exclusive (Protestant) Burgman College that Ruddy was domiciled at in the late 70ies. The two page feature is massively relevant to Greg Sheridan for his "paranoia" although its actually about James Jesus Angleton head of CIA counter intelligence until 1973 when he was "removed". My recollection of Angleton in Peter Wrights' Spycatcher is that he was a drunk, which explains oh so much. We read this essay at p28 Sydney Morning Herald Spectrum supplement 5-6 May 07. The piece apparently is found in full in Griffith Review 16: Unintended Consequences  (ABC Books), http://www3.griffith.edu.au/01/griffithreview/current_edition.php

This very amusing piece by Mark Coultan in New York in staying healthy while touching too many people in politics: Germ warfare fought on new front in clean land - Opinion - Home

Minister Joe Tripodi implicated by Trevor Davies in ALP Young Labor conference corruption [which recent law cases have shown is probably actionable for misuse of public funds]. Davies is a local ALP branch secretary and veteran worker at the South Sydney Herald free suburban press: April 2007 edition page 5 reads "I was asked by various people if I would have the person, who signed the nomination form in my name charged." If it looks like, reads like, smells like fraud, then it probably is.

Janet Albrechtsen, aka ABC Board's Madam Lash who gives every impression of a condescending pompous ayrian has the story of an ex union organiser Ayn Rand type Grace Collier in silky blouse, excessive lippy and a very big chip on her shoulder. This traitor to unionism says her old comrades are just fee gougers while Collier herself lives in a culture of social justice built by those same unions with a proud 100+ year history, warts and all. Sad stuff. Story here 5th May p23 where else but Murdoch The Australian Unions plan to get rich (and powerful) with bargaining fees ... (Albrechtsen is funny for her hyper praise of all things individual above all else while tugging the forelock as a Howard stooge on the ABC Board. In other words hierarchy is good as long as she is high on the hog, and too bad any of the individuals downstairs copping her lash. It's all about privilege really. 

Malcolm Turnbull busily protesting too much in all the Murdoch press at what a good job he and his government are doing on greenhouse emissions, as here Malcolm Turnbull: Bring Third World in on climate pact | Opinion ... While Mal has a point the critics at the Climate Institute are ALP aligned wolves, he still deserves a slam dunk for sleazy accounting tricks as per the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald here Wrong message on greenhouse

Then there was this curious 12cm by 12 cm advert green washing of the cotton industry massive over use of water here placed smack bang in the middle of the share market price lists on 2nd May SMH for "Ecoliving Collection"  (no relation to ecology action sydney related to SAM blog here):

But it's not just cotton marketers getting away with environmental murder. This one is going to our environmental contacts at Ecosistemas in Chile:

Last but not least this quote from Timothy Balding, CEO of Paris based World Association of Newspapers on World Press Freedom Day in "ALP's source protection delayed", by Chris Merritt Legal Affairs editor at The Australian May 4, 2007 p22:

"...there was legitimate concern that security and surveillance measures were being used to stifle debate and the free flow of information. Mr Balding said counter terrorism measures were laudable but there were growing concerns that they were being introduced with insufficient regard for the overriding need to protect individual liberties and press freedom."

Which echoes the question: Why exactly was this SAM news blog reporter evicted from Sydney University campus recently (see indepenent media topic at right) while reporting an anti government student rally? Could it be censorship under the cover of security. Surely not? Because that would bring security measures into disrepute and erode the integrity of that "laudable" objective for indulgence in abuse of power.

Posted by editor at 12:56 PM NZT

Updated: Sunday, 6 May 2007 10:44 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  amorous

We were chuffed to be called a "journalist" by the receptionist at the MEAA union in an email yesterday, though the editor is actually an ethusiastic amateur, lawyer, zoology graduate, ngo hack of 15 years.

Here are the figures for April 2007 (up to and including May 3rd, as we started on Jan 3rd) for hits to this password protected edited news blog:

April 2007 - 12,087

March 6,684

February 5,372

January 2800

Thankyou to our readers and especially anyone taking the time to comment or offer a story. This particular blog template is a bit clunky and daggy like it's editor but never mind. Thanks especially for the encouragement from various ngo and other professionals who are also stakeholders (aren't we all) in a vibrant democratic media sector here in Sydney.

SAM news blog site is starting from the proverbial "low base" but the trend at least is in the right direction and for that we feel a morale boost.

Posted by editor at 8:20 AM NZT

Updated: Saturday, 5 May 2007 9:00 AM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  accident prone

Picture: Greg Combet image on the ACTU website here still, and alot more flattering than the rather nasty image chose by Fairfax today here

Can the Howard government be trusted with our democracy anymore? This practitioner of community media has reason to ponder the question having been menaced and given an almost certainly illegal ban from Sydney University Campus on May 2^nd 2007. But more of that below.

This morning minister Joe Hockey was on ABC radio arguing the federal govt backflip on the strict Work Choices policy was after “listening” to the stakeholders and a sign of a “good government” (and see Greg Combet quote in bold below of 2^nd May on the 7.30 Report):

Others might not be so generous as to the democratic instincts of Hockey’s boss John Howard and his regime, and don't you love the monkey face choice of PM's photo above.

Here is a catalogue from open sources of fairly broad concern in the last week or so which taken together suggest shaky democracy here, and at the least evidencing hunger for change from an oppressive 11 year old government:

1. Malcolm Frazer ex PM as reported in Crikey.com.au May 1st 2007

Fraser: Howard's "evil purpose" 

Malcolm Fraser writes:

This is an extract from a speech former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser gave yesterday at the Australian National University -- read the full text here.

So David Hicks will be home by the end of the year, partially gagged. The gag order which was undermined by information provided to the British Government and subsequently published in his application to become a British citizen and subject to the same treatment as other British citizens formerly held in Guantanamo Bay.

And so this story comes to an end but at what a price. The main story is not David Hicks. The main story is a willingness of two allegedly democratic governments prepared to throw every legal principle out the window and establish a process that we would expect of tyrannical regimes. That our own democracies should be prepared to so abandon the Rule of Law for an expedient and as I believe, evil purpose should greatly disturb all of us. But how many are concerned? Too many are not concerned because they believe that such a derogation of justice can only apply to people who are different, in some indefinable way.

Only the other day I was speaking with somebody who quite plainly believed that Hicks deserved anything that was metered out to him because he was what he was, the Rule of Law did not need to apply. For somebody who has done terrible things, why does he deserve justice? That denies the whole basis of our system, the necessity of a civilised society which cannot exist unless there is an open, predictable justice system that applies equally to every person.

David Hicks at the best was clearly a very foolish young man. He was terribly misguided and may well have done some terrible things. I do not know. But if our Government says he has had his day in court, he made a plea bargain, therefore he deserved what he got, it only emphasises its lack of commitment to the Rule of Law for all people.

If the Government believes it to be expedient, we now know that it is prepared to push the Rule of Law aside. That is a larger issue than the tragedy of David Hicks.

A number of Liberals have spoken out about these and similar issues in relation to asylum seekers or refugees, or people improperly treated in Department of Immigration detention centres. Too many have remained silent. Does silence connote acquiescence, acceptance or fear, being fearful of standing and saying what they know to be right? A Liberal who fails to recognise the central importance of these issues for the maintenance of a fair and just democracy, bears no resemblance to the Liberals of Menzies’ day and to the Party that Menzies founded.

2. Paul Keating ex PM refers to News Ltd journalist attacks on collective bargaining as "fascists" on World Today radio show recently: The World Today - Rudd's IR policy doesn't wind-back my reforms ...

“Now this is what… all of those middle of the road fascists in the News Corporation papers all going on this morning on the front page of The Telegraph and The Australian and the hand-wringing, the conservative columnists in The Sydney Morning Herald… these people would not have the wit to compose an industrial relations policy and for most of Australia's history, for a century of it, of course, we had this industrial relations system, which I abolished.”

3. Crikey.com.au 2^nd May 2007 in their opening editorial reports News Ltd admission to Latham they have huge proportion of their staff on AWAs so going the biff on Julia Gillard for strongly defending the democratic principle of collective bargaining:

“Dear Sole Subscriber,

The Australian ran another lengthy editorial deriding the ALP's IR policy today. And on its front page it revealed the anonymous mutterings of a single Labor frontbencher about disquiet at Julia Gillard's performance. ''Labor team turns on Gillard'' headlined the Oz, while the Daily Telegraph screamed ''Julia falls flat''.

But is there more to this than mere ideological outrage in what is becoming a blatant campaign by News Limited's papers to wake their readership from any lingering honeymoon dalliance with Kevin Rudd? Why is it that News Ltd takes so strong a line in favour of WorkChoices and Australian Workplace Agreements? Ideology or simple self-interest?

Mark Latham said it first in his diaries:

Thursday 11 March 2004: “... trekked out Cavan to meet with Lachlan Murdoch and John Hartigan. They wanted a get-to-know you opportunity, so the Evil Empire must think I’m a chance. No harm in turning up to see what they are up to. Paul Kelly was right about this duo: lacklustre and over-rated ... Two main political issues: AWAs and Foxtel. Murdoch’s company has the highest number of AWAs in the country; all their journalists are on individual contracts. Hartigan pressed hard for me to drop our policy dedicated to their abolition, but I told him there was no chance of that.”

According to a News spokesman this morning, half of its journalists are on AWAs, a small portion of the 2500 Australian News employees on individual agreements. To give that some context, there are, according to government figures, just 17,276 AWAs across the entire information, media and telecommunications sector.

News looks set to wage this campaign until the election, and if it does, Kevin Rudd has every reason to fear what The Australian, the Courier-Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun, the Adelaide Advertiser, the Hobart Mercury, etc might yet achieve.

The thing Kevin Rudd has to avoid if he is to win the election is the doubt factor. So, when it comes to sowing small seeds of doubt in the minds of millions of reading voters as to Labor's capacity to manage the economy, the Murdoch headlines could be bullets. “

4.  Greg Combet still until today secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (but see Combet to stand for Labor ) on 2^nd May 2007, on 7.30 Report trenchantly defended the "human right" in “democratic societies” to collectively organise in the workplace

GREG COMBET: Well, can I make the obvious point first in answering that. That is within John Howard's power now. If he is concerned about people losing take-home pay and their penalty rates and their public holiday pay and the like, he controls both houses of Parliament. He could fix that now. And in fact if the business community was genuinely concerned about lower-paid employees in the Australian community in particular being disadvantaged, they could lobby for that change now. But they do not.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Yeah but - but my question is about Labor policy and a Labor Government.

GREG COMBET: Flexibility for them means the capacity to cut pay.

KERRY O'BRIEN: My question is why would you have a problem with that proposition I've put to you under a Labor government? Doesn't that resolve the problems?

GREG COMBET: Because, well, it resolves one of them and you remember I made two points. The other point is that it's been a feature of democratic societies, certainly throughout the post-war period, it was seen as a very important democratic principle. It's actually an internationally respected human right that where a majority of employees wish to collectively bargain, they should have that entitlement. That should be a right because individual employees do not have the same bargaining power as an international mining company.”

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1912836.htm

5. Our corporate big media are getting scared of their overlords, witness  the SMH spiking the Wendy Deng profile for Good Weekend as reported here by crikey.com.au

Fairfax kills vast profile of Murdoch's wife , Date: Friday, 20 April 2007 By Jane Nethercote

6. The Greens excellent, scary, depressing website Democracy4sale website regarding developer bribes as effective gerrymander of the whole parliamentary basis of our constitution against other minor parties or independent MPs: http://www.democracy4sale.org/

7. The sale of yet another competing newspaper organisation to News Ltd, this time Hannan newspapers (eg Wentworth Courier) as reported in a feature in the latest City Hub newspaper by owner/editor Lawrence Gibbons April 2007, offline: "Two's company: Australia's newspaper duopoly carves up the spoils".

8. The Free Speech policy of the Opposition underlining the need for such, reported by the media union here:

Picture: File room of the East German Stasi, made famous again recently in an acclaimed movie of that miserable organisation called Lives of others reported here BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Seven awards to German Stasi film

10. Ban of a freelance news blogger from Sydney University Campus for simply trying to report a student rally yesterday.

Related background here:

From: SAM editor To: Senator Coonan (Lib, Govt), Senator Allison (Democrat), Senator Nettle (Green), Senator Conroy (ALP), NSW Council for Civil Liberties

CC: Sydney Uni Student Representative Council, Senator Faulkner (ALP, President), Tanya Plibersek (MP Sydney), Media Arts Entertainment Alliance, Australian Services Union

Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:17 AM

Subject: indefinite ban on news blog service from Sydney Uni campus for reporting student rally May 2nd 07

----- Original Message -----

From: SAM editor

To: Sydney University senate admin and Vice Chancellor’s office

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:52 PM

Subject: abuse of power by 23 year old security officer Davis issuing a vexatious 'termination of licence' to attend USYD campus

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Please copy to all members of the Senate

2nd May 2007

Dear Mr Brown/Vice Chancellor,

Re vexatious abuse of power by your security officer Peter Davis

I am a 42 year old public interest lawyer here in Sydney who works in the community media sector and this is a complaint about abuse of power by one of your university security staff in a most undemocratic way today.

This web based news service attached below is doubling in readers ever month, currently at around 12,000 readers after 4 months. My impression is most of the local political community and media keep an eye on it's content as well as the Big Media including the ABC. I'm noticing that this alternative media site often informs the content of their high circulation media.

My feeling is your security officer the big strong 23 year old Peter Davis mentioned in the story below has abused his authority very badly on a personal ego trip.

I can only imagine what he thought he was doing deliberately intimidating and harrassing me and lecturing me on land law about how the campus is "private land" and then driving me off the campus indefinitely on a tissue thin pretext.

There is no doubt in my mind this was deliberate politically motivated harrassment and indeed stalking.

I absolutely reject any grounds for the issuing of 'a termination of licence' to attend the campus to do community reportage of what was essentially a public event. I hardly have any reason to attend the Sydney University campus but even so the legal notice is an affront and an outrageous slur on my professional reputation.

I will have to seriously consider my legal options, and I have in mind to sue the university for this slur. I request you arrange to have the notice cancelled forthwith, otherwise I would have to conclude there is an attempt to improperly ban me from the campus on the odd occasion I may want to visit the climbing gym or attend a function or indeed do paid work or as in this case do community media reportage.

Frankly I find this curb on community media quite obscene and I will be copying this letter to the President of the SRC Angus McFarland with whom I briefly discussed this situation today. I have pointed out to him if he wants to have future rallies or events reported upon I would need the legal right enter the campus. This is an issue of basic norms of free speech and freedom of the media.

It remains quite a puzzle to me why as evidenced in pictures below Mr Davis deliberately focused on me to take my picture. It is true I took a picture of these two staff in uniform because at first I thought they were NSW police in such a similar uniform. And second it was news, although only incidental,  that they were attending the student rally. Yet somehow it brought on this extraordinarily officious and heavy handed treatment.

Where do you stand exactly on democratic reporting of the news? Do you support at the leadership level of the university this apparent vendetta and revenge for doing my community media work? I sincerely hope not for the sake of the university if not the country.

I look forward to your response in due course by return email. I am contactable on tel. 0410 558838. My mailing address is C/- Addison Rd Community Centre, 142 Addison Rd, Marrickville 2204.

I reserve the right to publish this letter in due course.

Yours truly

Tom McLoughlin, solicitor in NSW

...........................................

full report with gallery of photos of the rally and march at this link

index.blog?topic_id=1083700

Wednesday, 2 May 2007

Student public education rally: SAM reporter banned 'indefinitely' from Sydney University campus for reporting event
Mood:  down
Topic: independent media

We say as a solicitor here in NSW the notice banning us from Sydney University is some kind of Stasi power game and almost certainly illegal, notwithstanding the campus have a land tenure like Darling Harbour and the Opera House known as “inclosed lands” under a 1901 Act because the notice handed to me was

-         manifestly unreasonable as evidenced by its “indefinite” term  and intent to oppress reportage of a student rally,

-         for an improper purpose of secrecy and censorship of democratic communication implied under our Commonwealth Constitution,

-         issued on the basis of irrelevant factors - revenge for taking a picture of security enforcing a poster ban and intimidating a student seeking their name and address (but stay tuned for invented smears by officious security low on the food chain to protect their backside?),

-         and failure to consider relevant facts (community media work responding to a public invitation is in fact a valid reason to be on the university campus).

I can imagine evidence of other grounds coming to light, like political bias,  especially if I am ever arrested by these goons for doing my community media work on that campus, plead not guilty, and issue a notice for discovery of documents in a court contest: A notice seeking discovery of

- tender documents for security services apparently under consideration at the moment;

- a culture of vexatious legal tactics for secrecy at the university, a tone it seems set from the top judging by this article yesterday in the Big Media:

Academe rewards kept mum  May 3rd 2007 p20, How much does a vice-chancellor earn? In the case of some universities we may never know, writes Matthew Moore.

To quote: "compared with Sydney University, Wollongong is a fresh breath of openness and transparency. At Sydney, the decision refusing access to everything, made by the registrar, William Adams (who certainly put his legal qualifications to use), is a detailed determination drawing heavily on the Fomiatti decision.

The contract appointing Gavin Brown as vice-chancellor in 1996 did not have a confidentiality clause, but Dr Adams says a letter from the then chancellor, Dame Leonie Kramer, was marked "personal and in confidence". This was as good as a confidentiality clause for the purposes of denying access.

After all, Dr Adams said, the information in the contract "has the necessary quality of confidence" and was "imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence". Got that?

What he doesn't say, of course, is why Brown's deal needs to be kept secret when everyone is allowed to know that Macquarie's Steven Schwartz is paid $600,000 with an annual bonus of $100,000 paid if performance indicators (public) are met. All the details are there - Schwartz's relocation costs ($25,000), shipping costs ($25,000), temporary accommodation costs ($15,000) and legal costs ($10,000)."

We notice an echo of the youthful demonstrators rally led by the National Union of Students in this story via the ALP's Tanya Plibersek MP here 3rd May Opposition wants 'independent' youth body. 03/05/2007. ABC News Online

A kindly, very respected, very senior journalist that should remain nameless writes:

Dear Tom, Have you taken this up with the MEAA [Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance]? You should. I reckon they ought to take an interest -- whether or not you're a member -- because this is essentially a freedom-of-the-press issue. Best wishes,

We agree with this common sense suggestion.

Posted by editor at 12:48 PM NZT

Updated: Friday, 4 May 2007 1:38 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  down

Picture: Happy rally marshalls relaxing at the Front Lawn Sydney Uni before the march into the CBD.

So having banked my pay cheque, paid my rent, I cycled down to the campus. There was a poster on City Road bus stop inviting me to the National Day of Action, at least I read it that way.

Similarly posters advertising the rally were at the front counter of the Student Representative Council SRC. No where did it say “students only”, and anyway I’ve been doing community media reportage for 10 years now.

But not only that. This writer has done street press delivery at the campus (at three locations) every month for the last 5 years. Information stalls at the Manning Building. Use of the climbing wall at the sports complex. And probably a host of other interactions with Sydney University life.

There is also an open invitation to the public to access the campus to view this current exhibition.

One got their note book out and started instructing a lefty student to take down a poster they were putting on pole. I took a picture of this enforcement but he got the note book out of sight before I could click.

As I wandered around taking pictures I got to talking with some local media students who then asked me for an interview about the value and purpose of such rallies. I said "it's crucial to keep the spark of democracy alive", and "a pity education is not as available as when I went through in the 1980ies. Even under Hawke they were unravelling the policies of Gough Whitlam".

Then while I was watching I noticed one of these goons (advisedly) grinning and taking pictures of me, as I covered the rally. It was the tall guy previously on the bicycle pictured above without a helmet at right, I now know as 23 year old Peter Davis.  Several times he seemed to focus on me. Not pointing at the rally itself but at me specifically.

Picture: stalked by a goon #1: Davis stalks me with camera. This was his second try, seeming to have trouble with the camera and showing it to a colleague.

Picture, stalked by a goon #2: Davis stalks me with camera again. Notice all the eyes are looking at the rally to the far left off screen, his camera is at me specifically.
 

As the crowd moved off I walked 50 metres to get my bike and join the march. The same goon who I now know as the officious 23 year old Peter Davis in a Sydney University security uniform quite similar to a NSW Police Uniform had followed me a good hundred metres and started leaning over me. “What’s your name? …Do you have any reason to he here on the campus? ….Show me your identification? ….You can show me or I can arrest you right now.” By this time he had 3 or 4 older guys in uniform standing behind him including an older security goon by the name of “Colin Bowman”.

Later on the march, and rally at the park near Central, I had a brief interview with the President of the SRC, the youthful Angus McFarland and we arranged to talk by phone after the rally.

I also attended the SRC office and was told by the staff member there may actually be a tendering battle going on at Sydney University for the on campus security work. There was an unconfirmed suggestion in what she said about new security staff hassling visitors to create an impression of greater efficiency. Or from what I saw officious menacing oppression of democratic process in a sensitive election year on an open university campus.

Certainly the real police and their convoy of vehicles following the students was huge. Much longer than the 300 or so students from Sydney Uni. There were big white vans, police on horseback, and tactical response in blue overalls.

It was a totally peaceful rally, then march with MC at the Sydney Uni end being Corinne Grant formerly of the Glasshouse ABC tv show: “Democracy is a beautiful thing” she had said encouraging students to enrol to vote. In fact as these pseudo fascists on the security staff at the campus issued me with an “indefinite” termination of licence ban from attending the Sydney University campus ever again, for simply reporting the community news, she walked past taking in the whole scene. Students were aghast and amused as I told the security I would likely see pompous Mr Davis in court.

 Picture: Materials given to this SAM reporter at Sydney Uni campus.

 

There was no insult until that point but I did call him a fascist and I mean it for writing me a “termination of licence” notice. I simply refuse to pander to such bullying. Seems self respect and doing community media is now deemed “insulting”. Who knows what perjury this Peter Davis and his mates will cook up? They got nervous when I started calling out 'stop harrassing me' and 'don't try and bully a solicitor in NSW for reporting a public rally'.

Picture: UTS student column joins the Sydney Uni column of marchers in Broadway, with solar powered music machine at bottom right.

As I returned from the rally I rang the Vice Chancellor’s office of Gavin Brown here and promised I would be submitting a written complaint, by email. And I will take it up with new Chancellor Marie Bashir when she takes on her job in June 2007. I rang the number for the General Manager of the University of Sydney Security Services by the name of Eric Wessels (!) but was told to put it in writing. You bet.

The whole episode was a disgrace to our democracy on the grounds of Sydney University and it just shows what an authoritarian oppressive culture we have in Howard’s Australia today. But the rally was great fun with a really good energy:

Green MP Senator Kerry Nettle has issued this press release on the National Union of Students day of protest:

02.05.07

Government's contempt for students threatens Australia's future


Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today urged the Treasurer not to continue
the government's contempt for university students and instead ensure
that the budget next week delivers key funding for student financial
support, funding to reduce class sizes and retain a broad range of
course offerings.

"Today the National Union of Students are protesting for better quality
and more accessible higher education. The Greens echo this call and urge
Peter Costello to loosen the purse strings to help our struggling
university system.

"The contempt that the Howard government has shown to students over the
past 11 years has strangled educational productivity.

"The Greens call on Peter Costello to use his last budget to deliver the
money needed to reduce class sizes and end fees, an adequate living
allowance to support students' when they are studying and real
indexation of government funding of universities.

"University life is changing for the worse in Australia with students
struggling with work pressure, crowded lectures and high fees. The
Australian community and economy is the loser.

"The Treasurer needs to end his addiction to false economies in
education funding and recognise as the business community has that every
dollar spent on improving our universities brings two more back into the
Australian economy."

Contact - Jon Edwards 0428 213 146

.....................................

Postscript #1 3rd May 2007: It seems the tone of legally enforced secrecy starts at the top at Sydney University starting with the "basic test of openness" when the Sydney Morning Herald asked Sydney University amongst other universities the salary package of their Vice Chancellors, reported today by Matthew Moore their FoI editor:

Academe rewards kept mum  May 3rd 2007 p20, How much does a vice-chancellor earn? In the case of some universities we may never know, writes Matthew Moore.

To quote: "compared with Sydney University, Wollongong is a fresh breath of openness and transparency. At Sydney, the decision refusing access to everything, made by the registrar, William Adams (who certainly put his legal qualifications to use), is a detailed determination drawing heavily on the Fomiatti decision.

The contract appointing Gavin Brown as vice-chancellor in 1996 did not have a confidentiality clause, but Dr Adams says a letter from the then chancellor, Dame Leonie Kramer, was marked "personal and in confidence". This was as good as a confidentiality clause for the purposes of denying access.

After all, Dr Adams said, the information in the contract "has the necessary quality of confidence" and was "imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence". Got that?

What he doesn't say, of course, is why Brown's deal needs to be kept secret when everyone is allowed to know that Macquarie's Steven Schwartz is paid $600,000 with an annual bonus of $100,000 paid if performance indicators (public) are met. All the details are there - Schwartz's relocation costs ($25,000), shipping costs ($25,000), temporary accommodation costs ($15,000) and legal costs ($10,000)."

Postscript #2 : Another echo of the youthful demonstrators led by the NUS was this story via the ALP's Tanya Plibersek here 3rd May Opposition wants 'independent' youth body. 03/05/2007. ABC News Online

Postscript #3: A kindly, very respected, very senior journalist that should remain nameless writes:

Dear Tom, Have you taken this up with the MEAA [Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance]? You should. I reckon they ought to take an interest -- whether or not you're a member -- because this is essentially a freedom-of-the-press issue. Best wishes,

We agree with this common sense suggestion.

Posted by editor at 5:34 PM NZT

Updated: Thursday, 3 May 2007 8:21 PM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink