Two stories from the “Sydney Morning Herald”:http://smh.com.au this morning tell us a lot about the Howard government. The “front page story”:http://smh.com.au/news/national/terrorist-laws-to-lock-up-objectors/2005/10/14/1128796712300.html concerns the government’s new anti-terror laws, and “the main feature”:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-real-deal/2005/10/14/1128796703087.html is about how to decode the government’s industrial relations policies.
First some details about the anti-terror laws.
bq. Supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could carry a penalty of seven years’ jail under the Prime Minister’s new terrorism laws … New sedition offences will put big constraints on anti-war protests, familiar since the Vietnam era … The bill sets out new federal police powers to detain terrorist suspects for up to 24 hours, and up to 48 hours with the approval of a judge or magistrate. Suspects will get access to a lawyer to challenge the detention order in a court or complain of maltreatment. … Police do not need to give suspects or their lawyers reasons for the detentions and can monitor lawyers. All conversations lawyers have with their clients must be in English or translated into English for the police. Police are prohibited from questioning the detainees but that ban does not apply to ASIO officers. … Last month the states agreed to allow extensions of up to 14 days for detentions when a terrorist act is believed imminent. … Detentions are secret but suspects are allowed to contact a family member or employers to say they are safe but, “not able to be contacted for the time being”. If they disclose the detention they can be jailed for up to five years. … Under the bill, the Government can apply to a court for control orders on terrorist suspects who have not been charged. These orders include house arrest, preventing them using the telephone or internet and restricting their social contacts and work opportunities. Suspects can also be fitted with tracking devices. … Also contained in the legislation are wide-ranging search powers that will compel the production of any documents relating to “any serious offence”, regardless of any laws protecting privacy or legal privilege.
Now onto the language used to sell the new industrial relations policies.
bq. *ORDINARY* As in “ordinary hours of work” set by law at 38 per week. But WorkChoices will allow them to be worked in an extraordinary fashion: “It will be possible for ordinary hours to be averaged over a period of up to 12 months.” So 80 here, 20 there and so on. No guaranteed penalty rates and overtime. (See Flexibility and Protected.)
bq. *PROTECTED* As in “protected award conditions” such as penalty rates, holidays, rest breaks and allowances. However, their only “protection” is needing to be explicitly listed when being negotiated away. Not to be confused with “standard” conditions such as annual leave, parental leave and the maximum ordinary hours of work protected by law. (But see Ordinary.)
bq. *RIGHT* As in “Protected by law the right to join and be represented by a union”. Yes, but WorkChoices curtails what unions can do for their members (see Strike) and makes it tougher for them to recruit. Workers on workplace agreements are specially protected from union officials. It gets tougher: WorkChoices forbids employers and employees agreeing to give unions a role in dispute resolution, pay them bargaining fees or even nominate that further collective agreements will be negotiated by unions.
bq. *STRIKE* As in “these changes do not abolish the right to strike”. True, but it will be further restricted under WorkChoices, with strikes allowed only after a secret ballot – which may take some weeks – “when negotiating an agreement” roughly every five years. Howard concedes strikes are at “the lowest levels in 90 years”. Lockouts – allowed at three days notice during negotiations – are, however, booming. In the four years to 1999 there were about 19,000 days lost to lockouts; and in the next four years, about 200,000.
bq. *UNLAWFUL* As in “Under the Australian Government’s workplace relations reforms, employees will continue to be protected from unlawful termination regardless of the size of the business.” Puzzling? Pay attention: it is not unlawful to unfairly sack anyone in a business of up to 100 staff. It is never unlawful to sack anyone for “operational reasons” in any business. The only unlawful sackings are those by any employer on the basis of race, sex, colour, sexual preference, etc.
As “Brad”:http://delong.typepad.com says from time to time, I’ll stop calling this crew Orwellian when they stop using _1984_ as an operation manual.
UPDATE: A full copy of the terror laws that the federal government is proposing has been released by the ACT government “here”:http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/B05PG201_v281.pdf (PDF, 331K). John Howard has “complained that his proposed law changes have been made public”:http://news.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=43505501920de2b6&ei=VatQQ-ifMKX26AHxkoynBQ&url=http%3A//www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483113.htm&cid=0.
{ 6 comments }
snuh 10.15.05 at 3:44 am
i am so chucking a sickee on monday. should the boss try and determine whether i am actually sick, i will respond to his message by telling him that, unfortunately, i am “not able to be contacted for the time beingâ€.
Tim Worstall 10.15.05 at 5:52 am
Compared to what is proposed in the UK those terror laws seem fairly mild. 48 hours or 90 days before being charged?
Syd Webb 10.15.05 at 7:09 am
Supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could carry a penalty of seven years’ jail under the Prime Minister’s new terrorism laws
The anti-sedition laws are a puzzler. A lot depends on how we are allowed to view the invasion and occupation of Iraq. On one hand, there were top Nazi officials executed, not for human rights abuses or crimes against humanity, but simply for waging aggressive war. If the invasion of Iraq did represent waging aggressive war then we should all speak out.
OTOH our government has a legal opinion that the invasion was authorised by an earlier UN resolution which would have been confirmed by a definitive subsequent ruling were it not for the pesky French/requirement for a 9-6 majority on the Security Council.
OTOOH other legal authorities have opined that UN Resolution 1441 did not authorise the military invasion. Certainly the invasion and occupation was not led by the UN.
It’s all very vexing. Are our leaders war criminals who should be opposed at every turn? Or are they agents for peace and collective security, attempting to carry out the will of a schizophrenic UN?
The ideal solution would be a Nuremburg style tribunal for Messrs Howard, Blair and Bush to resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. It’d be a fair trial and a chance to clear their names. Until then, assume that everyone is innocent and don’t introduce anti-sedition laws because its unclear what, if anything, there is to be seditious against.
Matt 10.15.05 at 8:31 am
To my mind the house arrest part is especially troublesome. Is the any measure to make sure that charges are brought in a reasonable time or that the matter can be reviewed? If not, one wonders how long such suspects will be able to maintain a house to be arrested in once their work opportunties, phone contact, movement, etc. are contained in these ways. I hope it won’t pass. I’d be shocked if Australia didn’t live up to its glorious past of applying laws somewhat like this only to the darkies as well. Sigh.
Uncle Kvetch 10.15.05 at 9:16 am
New sedition offences will put big constraints on anti-war protests, familiar since the Vietnam era …
Could someone fill us non-Aussies in on this one? Thanks.
ORDINARY As in “ordinary hours of work†set by law at 38 per week. But WorkChoices will allow them to be worked in an extraordinary fashion: “It will be possible for ordinary hours to be averaged over a period of up to 12 months.†So 80 here, 20 there and so on.
IIRC, this is precisely how the Jospin government in France got the business lobby to swallow the reduction to a 35-hour work week…but I could be wrong about that. Anybody?
paul lawson 10.15.05 at 1:51 pm
Australia was a 19th century set of ideas (8 hr day, votes for women, though the Kiwis were first, etc.) and rather a nice set at that. It is now over. It is… Howard/Ruddock/Abbott/Vanstone/Costello Land.
Sedition is revived. Perhaps the most seditious act about 50% of the populace could commit is to ‘offend’ en masse and demand 7 years of free rent. That might put some economic pressure on the new ruling class. Though they may respond with…what? Executions? Stay wherever you are Brian, there is no ‘home’ to come home to.
In a famous common law case of sedition, circa 1622, Sir John Sedley, caught short, inadvertently pissed on the King from a balcony.
Perhaps the tradition should be revived this time ‘vertently’.
And why not? After all we won’t have any jobs at a living wage. So much for Justice Higgins.
‘Transportation’ may also have been revived. There is precedent. Perhaps we should all report to a Government agency to have our ankles measured for leg irons.
About $100million could be earned by a supine media helping persuade us that this is good.
There is no ‘blood’ in the former Australia, nor in this this spring much wattle.
Perhaps Quiggin has an algorithm for the economic effects of mass civil disobedience.
Comments on this entry are closed.