Kristin O’Connell: “All poverty is ultimately income poverty. And its number one cause in this country is abhorrently low welfare payments. We don’t need more food banks, more rebates, more niche supports that are impossible to find out about, let alone access. We need money. … We’re long overdue for a new measure of poverty in this country. Until then, the best we have is the Henderson poverty line, dating back to the 60s. When people on jobseeker lived at this level temporarily in 2020 because of Covid-19 supports, we heard of the relief it brought, and also how many people still went without (more than a third still regularly skipped meals, medication and healthcare). This is the rate unemployed people and advocates have been pleading to have brought back urgently while the long-term work of better understanding poverty and rebuilding public investment in housing, healthcare and education is done. Both major parties are committed to tax cuts for the rich, negative gearing and capital gains tax policies that fuel astronomical house price growth — and pouring good money after bad on farcical defence projects. Yet they have the audacity to lecture us on careful spending. Both have staunchly ignored every shred of evidence about how government-inflicted poverty and ‘mutual’ obligations are destroying lives and killing people. … So no, whether Liberal or Labor, you’re not for the poor. You’re at war with us.”
Solidarity with NSW public school teachers, who have been forced to strike because the NSW government is intent on imposing a real wage cut, which will only exacerbate a teacher shortage. Dan Hogan: “Public school teachers and principals in New South Wales are striking [today] over the government’s failure to address spiraling shortages, stagnant wages, and unsustainable workloads. All options have been exhausted in negotiations with the NSW Department of Education. We have no other choice but to strike. … It is no secret to staff, students and parents connected to public schools that the state education system is built on the unpaid overtime of teachers. The Department’s decade-long austerity project has driven teachers out of the profession en masse, acted as a deterrent to ward off new talent and created a teacher shortage. Not only has its modus operandi of making teachers work more for less wages (or no wages at all) degraded the working conditions of teachers — it has also overseen a decline in positive education outcomes for students. The Department is yet to acknowledge the direct link between the working conditions of teachers and learning outcomes for students. … Gaining higher wages through industrial action would see the abolition of the government’s 2.5 per cent wages cap, which would be a huge benefit to all public sector workers whose pay and conditions are presently trapped under the cap. … The struggle has been developing since the 2011 imposition of the wages cap. Again, it does not take an overpaid bureaucrat to work out there is a direct link between ten years of declining learning outcomes and a decade of austerity measures. The wages cap has locked in a material decline in teacher wages.”
(This neoliberal approach to public sector salaries is not limited to Liberal governments. The Victorian Labor government uses an even tighter wage cap to avoid real negotiations with its employees over their pay — and in fact is going to further tighten the cap from 2% to just 1.5% next month.)
Bernard Keane [$]: “Consider the extent of wage theft: The remarkable diversity of organisations involved: large retail employers Bunnings, Target, Super Retail Group, 7-Eleven, Subway and Ampol; the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, the ABC, Monash, Melbourne, UNSW and Sydney universities; prominent law firms, prominent restaurateurs; Crown, a host of smaller retailers, NGO Red Cross, Optus, IBM, Telstra, Regis Healthcare, the Australian Sports Commission; The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) announced last week it had started legal action against Coles, claiming it had underpaid 7500 employees a total of $115 million between January 2017 and March 2020; that follows the FWO taking Woolworths to court in June over its $390 million (including interest) underpayment of staff; the Finance Sector Union today revealed it will launch a major court action against NAB in relation to wage underpayment and unpaid overtime… Nearly 90% of job ads in foreign languages specified below-award rates of pay, according to a Unions NSW survey… The steadily mounting evidence shows that Australia’s economic history of the last decade must be re-evaluated: wage theft has not been an incidental, occasional feature of the industrial relations system, but a key, intentional characteristic of Australian industrial relations that has had a significant positive impact on corporate profitability and significant negative impact on household income, directly through lower wages and indirectly through pressure on wage growth. … [A]ny economic policy or analysis that fails to recognise wage theft is a design feature of the Australian economy is wilfully blind.”
Prof Megan Davis: “It is rather odd that in Australia, unlike the rest of the world, there is a naive belief that truth comes before justice, truth comes before a treaty, and justice will follow the truth. … One of the sources of disgruntlement and frustration is how rarely the justice requirements − what does repair look like? − follow the truth-telling, and how little changes in power relations. … [Consider] the discomfort of many First Nations people following the Uluru Statement from the Heart, as allies ran off on truthy jaunts with truthy projects, well ahead of the mob. Before the Uluru statement, the language of truth and truth-telling barely featured in the nation’s narrative. After it, truth-telling is exigent, yet entirely detached from the political ask. Take note of those who are spruiking truth without constitutional voice. Notice who is not advocating for political power and structural reform. … The pithy tagline for the Uluru Statement from the Heart — ‘Voice, Treaty, Truth’ — in some ways invited this. It gives the false impression that change is an à la carte menu and one can simply pick what suits, even though these three proposals are connected, meaningful and not interchangeable. The reform is Voice: Makarrata. … Allies tend to cast aside the justice components of the Aboriginal struggle because they don’t want to be political — they want to be safe. … The idea that truth automatically will lead to justice is fraught. It is illusory. It is an ahistorical belief that is simply not borne out by the evidence. It defies the demands we have made as Aboriginal people for rigorous evidence-based thinking and public policy in Indigenous affairs. Beware the ally spruiking truth.”
The Human Rights Law Centre has produced a report outlining the systematic repression of climate activism in Australia, through the “introduction of harsh and at times unconstitutional, anti-protest laws targeting climate defenders… enforcement of punitive bail conditions and excessive penalties for minor protest related offences… [s]tifling civil society by defunding climate education and threatening to deregister charities that engage in climate activism” and “[t]argeting activists with litigation, and surveilling and infiltrating climate defender groups”. They note: “In the face of governments’ inertia, climate activism has been vital in helping persuade big business to change their ways: Equinor, BP, Santos and Chevron have abandoned risky oil drilling plans in the Great Australian Bight, Australia’s four major banks have agreed to exit the thermal coal sector on or before 2035, and Australian corporations including Coca Cola Amatil, Bunnings Warehouse and Officeworks have committed to sourcing 100 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Global Warning calls for urgent and immediate reform to stop the attack on climate defenders, including by establishing a federal integrity commission, capping political donations, and strengthening legal protections for activists by introducing an Australian Charter of Human Rights.” Read the full report.
Benjamin Clark: “Australia used to tackle intergenerational inequality via state and federal estate taxes. They once accounted for around 10% of state government tax revenue. But relentless campaigning by farmers and small businesses saw Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensland government axe theirs. The other states followed in fear of a retiree exodus, filling the revenue hole with pokie machines. Fraser joined in by abolishing the federal tax in 1979. It’s often claimed we can’t bring them back, or make bequests subject to capital gains tax, because it would be political suicide. … What imperilled Australia’s previous estate taxes was perceived low thresholds and the ease with which families with good accountants could dodge them. They also often applied to one’s spouse, handing opponents the potent political weapon of grieving widows. Targeting very wealthy households only, encompassing large gifts before death, and exempting spouses would help neutralise these lines of attack. The Australia Institute’s 2016 proposal is a sensible one — they’d exempt everything up to $2 million, tax fortunes between $2-10 million at 20%, and above $10 million at 30%, which would generate approximately $5 billion revenue per year. Advancing such a proposal would be an uphill battle against entrenched interests. But it’s past time we tried to bring ‘death taxes’ back from the grave.” Doing it at the federal level would also help avoid a race to the bottom.
A recent Federal Court decision — the Beams Lift Case — reveals how WorkSafe Victoria instinctively takes emoloyers’ side in safety disputes, the police back them up, and the ABCC swoops in to prosecute the union for bad manners while ignoring dangerous and deliberate breaches of safety laws by the bosses.
On a West Gate Tunnel project, union members were concerned about safety around a crane that was about to lift heavy infrastructure over the heads of workers. There was no safety representative on site, so they called in union officials. When they arrived, they legally accessed the workplace and asked to see the Safe Work Method Statement so they could verify it was being implemented correctly. The Federal Court accepted they
… had a continuing right to insist on its production to permit them to satisfy themselves of the advice they should give to the employees who had asked them to attend the worksite as to whether the operation they would be involved in moving the 16 tonne beams might justify them having a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to their safety.
The site managers refused to provide the paperwork, and instead called the police. When the police arrived, they negotiated a compromise — the managers would supply the paperwork if the union officials stopped recording the incident. The union agreed, but the managers reneged on the agreement and continued to withhold the paperwork.
A WorkSafe inspector was called. When he arrived, he immediately confronted the union officials about filming the dispute (the judge noted “perhaps that might not have been the most helpful start”) and — without even looking at the safety plan! — declared there was no immediate risk to safety. The police then removed the union officials from the site.
And here’s the thing. At all times, throughout the whole six hours of this farce, the union was validly exercising its health and safety rights — the leading official
… was entitled to stand his ground as he did. His doing so in the events in evidence, did not hinder or prevent either [WorkSafe] or the police in the exercise of their lawful duties. Moreover, albeit the consequence is speculative, his persistence may have prevented workplace injuries or death befalling member[s] of the Union.
In the words of the judge, “rather than lacking lawful entitlements [the union officials] were being hindered in their exercise of those legitimate industrial rights by the persons to whom they directed their respective intemperate remarks”. But those remarks had to be punished. So what kind of remarks are we talking about?
The judge found the WorkSafe inspector “jumped the gun when informing [the union officials] that there was no imminent risk to the workers’ safety. At that point of time [he] had yet to avail himself of the opportunity to inspect any of the materials (including the SMWS) which [they] were asking to see”. He “may have erred in his understanding of the law and having taken the course that he took (and I accept he did so)” — but the union official was punished for later “stating that it ‘exposes you for your incompetence… you’re a disgrace’.”
When the police, acting on the incompetent WorkSafe advice, removed the officials from the site (putting their members at risk), one of the union officials sarcastically said, “Who’s on the John Holland’s payroll boys? You as well? I thought it was only WorkSafe. Surely not in Australia?” The judge noted that this comment “may have involved an element of stress relief in recognition that the dangers he had feared might befall the workforce had been avoided” and “at a human level it would be an understandable reaction” — but he had to be punished for it. The judge noted this exchange was “more offensive” than any of the other remarks.
In weighing up the union officials’ conduct, the judge found “the balance, viewed in the round, having regard to the potential consequences he may have averted by the resolution he demonstrated is very much in his favour.” In other words, their impoliteness was trivial in the context of a serious safety risk, when their lawful exercise of their rights was hindered by the builder, WorkSafe, and the police.
And yet, as a result of this incident, the ABCC spent two years prosecuting the union, making a significant number of overblown accusations that were abandoned before the hearing. The union officials’ Fair Work permits will now be automatically cancelled because they expressed frustration when they spent 6 hours unlawfully prevented from exercising their rights under those permits.
One last thing: the site manager claimed that he did not want to hand over the documents because he did not like being filmed (this was not accepted by the judge as a “complete explanation” for his behaviour). The WorkSafe inspector also complained about being filmed. The judge rejected their objections, noting there was nothing to suggest the filming was done “for a purpose outside of that which was authorised by the OHS Act”. It seems likely that if the union had not kept filming throughout the incident, the ABCC would have pressed ahead with its original trumped up claims — and despite the video record of the employer’s 6 hour breach of the health and safety laws, the ABCC took their side.
Building workers’ safety is being put at risk by the tone police at the ABCC. It needs to be abolished.
Jeff Sparrow: ”Instead of pushing for deep, structural change, [leftists from the 1980s on] increasingly focused on symbolic or cultural reforms, centred particularly on places like university campuses. Though many of the demands associated with delegated politics were entirely valid, the new emphasis had profound consequences — and nowhere more so than in relation to climate change. Global warming is, after all, quintessentially material: a process resulting from the peculiar relationship capitalism mandates between humanity and nature. Yet the new propensity for activists to see politics primarily in terms of culture enabled corporations to shift the focus away from production and into the symbolic realm. … Abandoning economics to the free market right, progressives sought to inspire change either through individual examples (recycling, bicycle riding, etc) or symbolic events such as Earth Hour. Politically, environmentalism often manifested in terms of belief rather than action. With conservatives pandering to climate scepticism, liberals voted for candidates who promised they ‘accepted the science’. Yet, on their own, such statements of faith changed nothing. … Atmospheric carbon does not care about culture war. Neither should we. Global warming exacerbates every kind of inequality, disproportionately affecting the poorest and most oppressed people on the planet. In that way, it creates a tremendous potential constituency for direct politics, for a mass, participatory campaign to fundamentally reshape how humans relate to nature — and to each other. But to seize the opportunity, progressives need a quite different orientation. If we keep fighting in the realm of symbolism, our last, best chance to save the planet will slip through our fingers, too.”
Jeff’s new book, Crimes Against Nature: Capitalism and Global Heating, is worth reading.
Jason Parry on Sci-Hub, the Napster of academic papers: “Given the example of Sci-Hub, the easy logistics of internet publication, and the funding structure of academic research, it seems clear that in the absence of the academic publishing industry, scholarship would be more widely available, not less. If the academic publishing industry did not exist, scientists could still do their research—in fact, it would be easier to do so as more people would have access to scholarly literature. The peer-review process could still function normally—though there are good reasons to change that as well. And the resulting papers could simply be posted in a place where anyone could read them. … When several record companies sued Napster in 2001, they could make the legitimate case that the economic well-being of the musicians, producers, and all the people who were needed to distribute recorded music was at stake. No such parallel exists in the case of Sci-Hub. Scientists are not paid by the publishers. Peer reviewers are not paid by the publishers. Distribution itself, as proven by Sci-Hub and its more law-abiding brother arXiv, is cheap enough to be provided to the public for free. It’s not surprising, then, that polls reveal that scientists overwhelmingly support Sci-Hub. … For the academic publishers, it is about extracting rents rather than enforcing ideological or theological orthodoxy. But making scientific journals prohibitively expensive unfortunately achieves the same effect as censoring them.”
Former NSW and Victorian judges Anthony Whealy and Stephen Charles [$]: “It is regrettable that The Australian Financial Review’s editorial — Voters, not ICAC, should judge the business of politics — of November 3 should have taken a narrow view of the need for proper integrity oversight of the political process in NSW. This is a grotesque view. Voters are in no position to investigate at close quarters the minutiae of events surrounding any particular grant decision. Consider the detail of the Auditor-General’s report into the Sport Rorts scandal. Consider also the months of inquiry, the call for and collection of documents, the interviewing of witnesses, the compulsory examinations in connection with the Maguire/Berejiklian investigation. The material uncovered in both these matters, one federal and one state, emphasises how voters, left solely to their own prejudices, know little of the detailed circumstances involving ‘the business of politics’. It is laughable to suggest that voters, in the absence of independent scrutiny, are in any position to judge the lawfulness, probity and rectitude of government decisions.” It’s true that voters should judge the business of politics — but they need a range of institutions, including well-resourced independent anti-corruption commissions, to provide the information that allows them to cast an informed vote.