Surely it only feels futile? Please?

[catsidhe]

A few thoughts come to mind while reading this.

Summary: The Federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations found out that public servants were planning to take annual leave, and spend their resultant free time going to a union rally to protest against legislation which would make it illegal to, well, attend a union rally at all, really. The Dept of Emp & Work Rel. advised — officially advised — other departments that they should refuse any leave if there was a chance that it was to go to that rally. Basically, the Fed Dept of Emp & Work Rel gave an official decree that what people legally did on their time off was its business, and some legal activities should be forbidden for political reasons. The Federal Court has just determined that this was, in fact, illegal, and given close to the highest available fine in punishment: $30,000.

• Um, isn't the court actually fining the Taxpayers, for a partisan political fuckup by individuals in a given bureaucracy? It does point out that “some senior departmental officers knew it was wrong to issue such advice”, which does rather raise the question as to who it was who issued such advice, and why, and why those aforesaid Senior Officers did not quash it. But why are those, identifiable people (and given that this is a public service bureaucracy, if they can't identify the miscreant(s), that's another outrage) not being fined, but the department is? Because that will just be soaked immediately in the budget and those responsible will avoid any personal liability for their actions (and lack of action). It's basically everything which erudito most (and most rightly) derides about ‘socialist’ systems: the lack of personal accountability.
• $30,000 looks like a lot when it is in your bank account, but a Government Department spends more than that on paperclips. It really will just get soaked in the general budget mass, and won't even be noticed. What ‘deterrent’, then? No-one at all will actually be deterred. Although the Union involved might make some poetic mileage out of it.
• At least the Federal Court is showing some cojones. Although it could be argued that the Fed Dept of Emp & Work Rel itself showed big brass ones, giving a ruling that was illegal under the existing system, against protesting against a system under which the ruling would still be illegal.
• So, Howard's has really shown itself up for exactly how much it is a friend of Free Speech and workers' rights. That would be: “none at all”.

Will this effect the election? I suspect that it will flare for a couple of days, if that, then die to be replaced by a photo of Turnbull picking his nose or something. Ultimately, this will effect the result precisely as much as the ‘Debate’ did(n't), where the story was all about Channel 9 running the Worm and being cut off. Apparently there were a couple of stuffed shirts talking about something, but no-one was paying any attention to that.

This bit of news will not change many people's minds. The ‘Howard Haters’ already knew that Howard and his gang of thugs had done their level best to corrupt the public service. The Howard sycophants are probably already screaming about how the ruling was a fix, and in between ... I suspect that sufficient distractions will be arranged, such that there will be other things on most people's minds on the 24th. Sure, a few people might remember, but I don't think it will make much of a difference.

Still, the polls are pointing at a thorough pasting for Howard and his gang, so hopefully it doesn't need to — it's icing.

Because, despite what I said about no-one taking much notice, it does stand as an indictment on Howard's attempts to suppress any speech he doesn't like the sound of.


(hat tip to the LJ-less mpp)

Comments

[tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com]

At least my union is going to be happy about a small amount of compensation.

I *heart* my union.

[(Anonymous)]

The story did not get a mention on the CH9 news service last night. I don't think it was mentioned on the CH10 news service, either. In fact, the only place I saw it mentioned was on SBS World News Australia (don't get me started on this World News rubbish, we all know their news is really 90% about Iraq, Iran and Afganistan... as if the whole world revolved around them?! Hardly World news). The Age had the story on some page midway through the paper, in a small little space where most people would not have seen it. Pfft. It's perfect character reference material, at why we need a change in government and the need to abolish these silly anti-union laws.

-- mpp

[tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com]

I was amazed not to see it on the front page of the Age.

I just don't get it.

I wasn't.

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

I think it's simple. The Mainstream Media has demonstrated, once again, that it is vitally important that relevant data not impede the smooth progress of this election.

The plebs simply won't be able to draw the appropriate conclusions from data, they must be led to Rightness through exposure to social gaffs and long-forgotten embarrassments.

There was a debate yesterday between the Lab and Lib health ministers. Presumably it went for more than half an hour. So when Abbott turned up half an hour late, surely there was some debate that went on? During that half hour, surely Whats-her-face was asked some questions? Did we get told any of that information? No. What we got was “Abbott was late, whats-her-face offered to do an impersonation (and we all laughed!), Abbott said a rude word after, umm-ahh!”.

There was a Treasurers Debate in there as well. It was streamed live on the internetz0r. But if you missed it, like – well – everyone with a daytime job, what did they say? If they didn't say anything, isn't that important as well?

And in the whole Channel 9 worm débâcle Leaders' Debate, where was the coverage of what the fuckers actually said?

It's a good thing that we have the ABC to inform us of this sort of thing. And there you see why the people who run the country want it to go away. Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!

Re: I wasn't.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you actually watch the ABC TV news much??

It's almost as poor in quality as the commercial networks. No wait, it's worse because it is so painfully obvious how little money they have. They just can't compete. Stories are oft incomplete and lacking detail.

In fact the only part of the ABC news that adds any value is Alan Kohler's (speeling?) finance report. I find it both "entertaining" and interesting. I don't know enough to judge how much of it is relevant or accurate, though. When I have time (less and less, now), I read his column in The Age newspaper - I would never have found it without his presence on the ABC news.

-- mpp

Re: I wasn't.

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

It's still better than the commercials. If nothing else, because they don't waste quite as much time on what colour knickers Brittney isn't wearing this week.

You identified the problem, though. The government (Howard's government, really) identified the ABC as an enemy. It couldn't do anything about it outright, but it could starve it. It found trivial issues, and blew them up into reasons not to maintain funding. It then found more serious problems, largely caused or exacerbated by lack of money, and used them as excuses for reducing the funding even further. And stacking the board, long a favourite pastime of governments, became an obsession. And now we're at the stage that while the ABC's superiority to the commercials still glimmers, there are large patches which have been dragged down to the commercials' level. Similar quality of newsgathering, if superior quality of reporting on what they can find, with the drought of money becoming obvious. Then people like erudito start going on about how there is no benefit the taxpayer paying for something no better than the commercials, and why not sell the whole lot off to Murdoch?

Which is what they wanted in the first place.

Re: I wasn't.

[(Anonymous)]

and why not sell the whole lot off to Murdoch?

Now, all we need is a Liberal front bencher to joke about doing just that.

-- mpp