Unmasked: Robert McLelland was Osama bin Laden's Gardener

I think I can speak for the branch on this one, when I express a little bewilderment at the furore over McLelland's comments on the death penalty today. The attack by Howard and his henchman (rapidly becoming shorthand for Alexander Downer) was swift and the media were only too willing to play along.

Soft on terror or strong on human rights?

The suggestion that the timing was insensitive is understandable if arguable. That it was impolitic I suppose is obvious. However, it was undeniably principled and totally consistent with the stated policy of both the Labor and Liberal parties. If anything, it's the Liberals who should be ashamed by McLelland's speech. Howard's hypocrisy is more tangible than usual on this issue, condemning the death penalty when it's convenient (Nguyen) and playing along when it's popular (terrorists).

I'll take any excuse to quote H.L. Mencken:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Certainly the Bali bombers are scoundrels and will not be missed by many over here. But that's the true test of a principled policy. If our policy is to oppose the death penalty except for people we really hate, then I don't think that's much of a policy at all.

Don't Jinx It

A new round of polls are coming out and the new status quo has been maintained with Labor commanding a solid lead over the Government. The quest for 16 seats, though far from over, is coming along very nicely. Presumably Kevin07, his front bench, and many prospective MPs are making plans for the upcoming succession. It's the prudent thing to do - you don't want to win government and be caught with your pants down, not having an office or a staff ready to go.

On the other hand, none of them would want to public to know that they were making such preparations. Politicians live in fear of the backlash the voters are certain to mete out on those seen to be "arrogant" or "taking the electorate for granted". The conventional wisdom, for what it's worth, would lead one to believe that unless we think the polly is afraid of us and in desperate courting mode, we'll punish them with a vote for the other guy. I don't know if there's any truth to this, but I must admit it knowing Aussies it doesn't feel outside the realm of possibility! Downer, the new Liberal enforcer, has certainly tried to use this as a weapon, telling all who would listen that Rudd is telling people in private that the election is in the bag. This appears to have worked as well as all of the Liberals' other attacks so far.

Another reason I think many people are hesitant to declare the ALP in with a shot is the idea of the "narrowing" - that is, the narrowing of the gap in the polls that is thought to occur during the campaign proper. In "Crikey's Guide to the 2007 Election" they opine that this is merely a result of the polls becoming more accurate as people make up their minds, but Possum's Pollytics does a good job of showing that the whole concept of the Narrowing is more mythological than anything else. How many people are going to fall in love with Howard again just because they know the election has gone from probably being on the 24th of November, to a certainty?

Finally, I think a lot of it comes down to the childhood superstition of the Jinx. Expressing optimism at some upcoming good fortune, people instinctively feel, may prevent it coming to pass. In China, at least in the past, one would never speak openly about how well a child was doing lest mischievous spirits overhear and visit some illness on the unfortunate babe. Perhaps we just think the universe doesn't like a braggart. Certainly I think that many in the ALP have been in opposition too long and just don't want to get their hopes up.

In any case, at the risk of jinxing it, I think we have the best chance in a decade of crowbarring the dessicated coconut off his seat, and I for one am going to maintain a sunny and optimistic attitude to the brave new Labor world that is coming. Touch wood.

Joe Hockey: "Squawk! Squawk!"

Minister, methinks thou doth protest too much.

The release yesterday of the first stage Australia@Work report from the Workplace Research Centre in Sydney is a pretty damning indictment of WorkChoices. The survey of more than 8000 Australians shows that those on AWAs do more work for less money: on average, $100 per week less. It's just confirming what everybody already knows, but it's only natural that the minister should try and put some political spin on it to try and minimize the damage. His rather dishonest attempts to find statistics - any statistics - to paint a rosier picture of WorkChoices was therefore not surprising.

His direct attack on the researchers themselves, though, was a surprise, even from a political " "brawler" such as Hockey. Comments such as "former trade union officials who are parading as academics" and "I'm not sure that this institution is known for academic rigour" amount to nothing more than ad hominem attacks and do nothing if not highlight the weakness of Hockey's position. Although the study is funded partly with money from Unions NSW, it has nearly $1 million in Australian Resarch Council money; it was signed-off by the University's ethics committee, it was peer reviewed by three anonymous referees and two internal referees, and was reviewed by the full board of the ARC. Those working on the report have eight degrees including two PhDs between them. Given these facts, can anyone seriously suggest this study is a flawed exercise in Union PR hackery? To do so would be an insult to academics everywhere.

The numbers back the report's authors up. Hockey has cherry picked his own data to try and show that WorkChoices is a bonanza for the Australian worker, but now even the ABS is pouring cold water on this (from The Age):

Mr Hockey said that ABS data showed that workers on Australian Workplace Agreements "earn nearly twice as much as people on awards". Prime Minister John Howard also said that the ABS "tell us that people are better off under AWAs".

But the ABS's assistant director of labour employee surveys, Valerie Pearson, said the survey Mr Hockey had referred to "was conducted only six weeks post WorkChoices".

In fact, the only data that shows employees on AWAs earn more also shows that they work longer hours and get paid less per hour than those on collective agreements. The common sense of the Australian working public has always told them this would happen. The idea of a lowly worker entering into tough negotiations with his boss and coming out triumphant is clearly ridiculous. The numbers only confirm that WorkChoices is all about the employer, from A-Z.

The minister has a tough task defending it, but he crossed the line yesterday. He has come off as shrill, desperate and thuggish, and may even have opened himself to defamation proceedings. Thanks to the Howard government's neglect of tertiary education, universities are encouraged to pursue parternships with business and industry to secure funding for their projects. Hockey's meritless trashing of the Centre and the researchers involved has damaged their commercial reputation. The researchers know this and don't appear to be taking it lying down. Nor should they. Hockey has dug himself into a hole, and the only way out is a public apology.

I won't hold my breath.

John Howard, keeping you safe from the internet

"Dear Fellow Australian...."

The ridiculous flood of taxpayer-funded advertising continues, causing (by all accounts) no shortage of bemusement in the electorate. Given the proximity to the election, Aussies are more than cynical enough to raise en eyebrow when they see the PM's face adorning a leaflet warning them about internet stalkers, and see it for the boondoggle it is. "Be afraid" is, of course, a favorite mantra of the Howard government, and all goverments everywhere. Of course the PM is willing to step in and keep you safe from the latest menace. He cares so much about you, he's willing to print a pamphlet about it, no matter how much it costs. 

Don't forget to be afraid about drugs, too. As well as learning a bit about how to construct a reason to get my face into the mailboxes of Australian households, I learned a lot of names for drugs I admit not knowing before. Next time I'm discussing drugs with a teenager and they mention scoring one of these, I'll know what they are talking about. My tax dollars at work!

Miss Emma, Mister Blue, Mandies, Windowpane, Angel's Trumpet, Scotty

And here are a few terms that as far as I know are not euphisims for illegal substances, but I think should be:

Abbott & Costello, Captain Smirk, Rodent, Vanstone.

If anyone knows where I can score a baggie of grade-A Captain Smirk, let me know.