Rinehart has already bought Channel Ten’s agenda — and Australia’s ownership restrictions need urgent reform to end her latest assault on Fairfax.

The media inquiry that Avaaz members helped win is just weeks away from reporting, and provides the government with the crucial chance to act.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is supportive of stronger ownership limits — but he needs a community outcry to get the whole government on board.

Sign the petition to Minister Conroy now to ensure a mogul-free Australian media. When the petition reaches 50,000 signatures, we’ll spectacularly deliver the massive message in Canberra:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_ginas_mining_media/?vl

Gina Rinehart is Australia’s richest person, and she’s poised to buy political influence. Her campaign against the mining tax lead directly to the sacking of former PM Kevin Rudd — just a taste of the power she could wield through total media control.

This is a woman who wants to use nuclear bombs to blast even larger open-cut mines, supports WA seceding from Australia, and bankrolls climate change denial.

Rinehart now owns almost 15% of Fairfax, and past actions suggest her plan is to use this control to push her extreme views.

She has already made her mark at Channel Ten — with 10% ownership of the TV network, she’s quickly installed herself on the board and was reportedly behind the divisive Andrew Bolt being given his own show. As Murdoch’s only newspaper competition, loosing Fairfax to another extremist media mogul would be a huge blow to Australian democracy.

To stop media moguls and clean up our media, we desperately need stronger ownership limits, a ‘fit and proper person’ test for use of public airwaves, and a strong and independent media regulator.

We’ve already succeeded in establishing the inquiry and pushing it to make strong recommendations — but only our pressure can ensure the government listens to the people instead of the moguls. Let’s give Minister Conroy the support he needs to put a stop to damaging media moguls — sign the petition now:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_ginas_mining_media/?vl

Putting aside the Remuneration Report’s recommended high level for the base rate for MPs, one issue is the wage fixing system itself- that under the Fair Work Act for all and for the political elite their own.

Our political elite put up arguments to be assessed by their Independent Remuneration Tribunal.

MPs argue for increases based on work value of their responsibilities in Parliament and in the electorate and comparative wage justice with comparable leaders with similar responsibilities.

But these same political elite have for years refused an independent wage fixing tribunal that grants wage increases on work value and comparative wage justice for the millions of employees.

Instead the MPs are zealots for employees to be compelled to do enterprise bargaining only.

Our 100 year old conciliation and arbitration system settling industrial disputes and work value and comparative wage justice was abolished by these political elite.

Instead under the Constitution’s corporations power MPs force employees in corporations to bargain at the enterprise with employers.

If there was any hint of fairness in MPs, then our high paid political elite would amend the Fair Work Act to allow an independent tribunal to do a work evaluation of base salaries and comparative wage justice for all workers who are denied such a system.

One system for the state elite, judges, senior public servants and MPs, but another unfair system for the workforce.

Oh, I forgot to add that our corporate elite who similarly set their pay on such comparative principles are steadfast in their opposition of any general return to arbitration for their workforce. An exception is of course the corporation with a sudden lock-out like Qantas gets an arbitration.

Here is the Tribunal’s report

http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/statementsreports/MPs%20Report%2015.12.2011.pdf

Labour Law

‘A report published today by the public education advocacy group, Save Our Schools, finds that two voucher models of school funding proposed to the Gonski Review would deliver billions of dollars in additional funding for private schools and no increases for government schools.

Trevor Cobbold, author of the report and national convenor of SOS, said the proposals would provide an outlandish funding bonanza for private schools and should be rejected by the Review.

“The two models would give a massive boost in government funding to private schools over their actual funding in 2009. The voucher model proposed by Independent Schools Victoria (ISV) would deliver an additional $3.3 billion a year – $1.8 billion to Independent schools and $1.5 billion to Catholic schools.

“The model proposed by the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) would provide an additional $2.5 billion a year – $1.6 billion to Catholic schools and $0.9 billion to Independent schools.

“At best, government schools get no increased funding and, at worst, a massive reduction. The ISV model would strip $2.5 billion from government schools.”

Mr. Cobbold said that the report shows that the biggest funding increases would go to the wealthiest Independent schools.

“It is a case of sheer greed and naked self-interest. Overall, 80 of the wealthiest private schools in Australia would collect $970 million in base funding a year under the ISV model compared to $380 million in total government funding in 2009.

“The ISV model would give 21 elite NSW Independent schools a funding increase of $191 million a year, or 207%, over their actual government funding in 2009.

This includes an increase of 337% for Scots College, 313% for SCEGGS Redlands, 286% for Ascham, 269% for Cranbrook, and 257% for Sydney Grammar. Over 80% of students at the 21 schools are from the highest SES quartile and only 1% is from the lowest SES quartile.

“In Victoria, 21 elite Independent schools would get an increase of $174 million a year, an increase of 204% over their actual government funding in 2009. Funding per student for St. Catherine‟s would increase by 374%, Lauriston by 308%, Korowa by 291%, Melbourne Grammar by 278%, and Scotch College by 273%. Eighty per cent of students at the 21 schools are from the highest SES quartile and only 1% is from the lowest SES quartile.

“The CIS model would also deliver a funding bonanza to the wealthiest schools. Independent schools with fees over $5,000 will receive a total of $1.8 billion a year in base funding while similar Catholic schools will get $0.5 billion.”

“The CIS concedes that “some independent schools clearly do not „need‟ public funding” and that “it is difficult to justify providing extra public funds to already well-resourced students and schools”.

However, it then proposes to give them over $2 billion a year in additional government funding.”

Mr. Cobbold said that these massive increases in government funding would give private schools a huge resource advantage over government schools.

“Under the ISV model, total resources (from private and government sources) per student in Independent schools will be nearly double that of government schools while that of Catholic schools will be 30% higher.

Total resources in Independent schools will be $19,609 per student and $13,511 in Catholic schools compared to $10,467 in government schools.

“Under the CIS model, total resources for Independent schools will be $17,847 per student and $13,706 in Catholic schools compared to $11,448 in government schools.

“Such huge resource advantages for schools which have much lower proportions of students from low income families than government schools can only exacerbate inequity in education.

Massive funding increases would go to higher SES students in private schools rather than those most in need, the vast majority of who are in government schools.

“Even the author of the CIS model concedes that voucher models are “extraordinarily expensive” and “would require billions of dollars of additional public expenditure”.

These billions would be far better and more efficiently spent on reducing the massive achievement gap between rich and poor in Australia.

“The Gonski Review stated repeatedly that its focus is on improving equity in education. Given this, it has no alternative but to reject these models as the basis for the future funding of Australian schools.”

5 December 2011

Contact:
Trevor Cobbold – 0410 121 640 (m)
Summary charts and funding examples from other states available.

SOS – Fighting for Equity in Education

http://www.saveourschools.com.au

http://stopwarcoalition.org/sign-on-letter-to-pm-julia-gillard-troops-out-of-afghanistan/

A statewide mass meeting of public sector ANF members resolved today to continue with the industrial action contained in resolutions of the 4th and 11th November 2011, including ensuring that the bans do not endanger anyone’s health, welfare or safety.

Members heard of the various attempts by the State Government to thwart our action through applications to Fair Work Australia, and of the failure of the State Government to take any steps to resolve the dispute, including its refusal to agree to consent arbitration.

In all of these circumstances members voted to maintain the industrial action as no alternative exists to bring the dispute to conclusion.

Members did however authorise the State Secretary to suspend the action if agreement could be reached with the State Government for consent arbitration.

The meeting also condemned the Minister for Health for:

making untrue statements to the Victorian community regarding our action and its impact on patient health, welfare and safety; and

refusing ANF’s offer of consent arbitration that could have brought the dispute to an end without threatening nurse to patient ratios.

ANF Members agreed to meet again:
in the Bourke St mall at 12.30pm Thursday 24 November 2011 and to march to the steps of Parliament House for a 1.00pm protest.
on 29 November 2011 (subject to confirmation) to hear a further report back and consider what action needs to be taken in the event that an acceptable offer is still not made to Victorian nurses and midwives.

Members will also staff information tables outside the Electorate Offices of number of members of the Baillieu Government. To volunteer to help staff these tables please register at http://www.anfvic.asn.au/campaigns/topics/34582.html (direct link to come shortly).

At the request of the Fair Work Ombudsman I am also obliged to advise members that the FWA Order of 18 November is expressed to apply to and be binding upon employees of one (or more) of the employers listed in Schedule A to the Order and who are members of the Victorian Branch of the ANF in respect of their employment with that Employer or another Employer listed in Schedule A only.

Here also is an explanation
Many members have asked for an easy way of explaining why Victorian nurses and midwives remain taking action despite the rulings of the ‘independent umpire’, Fair Work Australia.

The reason is that the Kennett Government chose not to give the independent industrial umpire of the time (now Fair Work Australia) the power to determine the number of persons the State Government employs (nurse patient ratios), their qualifications (RN/EN skill mix) and a range of other matters.

The Federal Government does not have the power to change the State Government’s laws to address this problem. As a consequence, Fair Work Australia cannot decide (arbitrate) the matters above which is why ANF calls this a ‘restrictive arbitration’.

The ANF and the Employers, including the Government can agree (consent arbitration) to include the nurse patient ratio and skill mix matters. To date the State Government has refused to agree. We have held out this olive branch and continue to do so.

This is why the State Government planned from as early as May 2011 to force nurses into this one-sided arbitration, knowing that nurse patient ratios would be lost. The process to arrive at forced arbitration is to have our protected action ‘terminated’.

If the Government truly wanted the independent umpire to resolve the matter, they would agree to consent arbitration so Fair Work Australia does not have one hand tied behind its back.

As our protected industrial action was ‘suspended’, not terminated, the State Government’s Plan A is in tatters.

It should also be noted that while some may refer to our action as unlawful, the ANF is in the process of challenging the decision that made our action unprotected.

If successful, our action would not be unlawful.

Comment from Chris White: as argued on this blog the FWA distinction between protected/unprotected industrial action has to be abolished and all industrial action decided by members is protected, otherwise there is no right to strike.

The Fair Work Act has to be amended to repeal anti-strike provisions and penalties.

When the labor control system is repressive workers and their unions have to strike to win the negotiated outcome and to change the unfair strike system.

See on this blog my support for ‘reviving the strike.’

Update
http://www.anfvic.asn.au/campaigns/news/41527.html

Public Forum on the 5 October, 2004, to a packed Elder Hall University of Adelaide. Organised by Australian Options with the support of The Dunstan Foundation,the Schools of Law at the University of Adelaide and Flinders University.

The rule of law – what it means and how it affects the rights of people
‘I acknowledge that I speak tonight on Kaurna land. I thank the Dunstan Foundation for making this meeting possible and the law faculties for their aid and I pay respect to Don Dunstan whose leadership gave us the first ever democratically elected Parliament in South Australia, the first Sex Discrimination Act in our country and the first conveyance of land to Aboriginal people in our country.

I speak here as the representative of the broad left journal Australian Options, which was established by people who thought that following what had happened around the world, the left had lost its concept of the way forward and we had to find that way. We have lasted almost ten years, we still think that is the task.

The Rule of Law is a fundamental concept of our society and many others. It existed in the ancient Greek civilisation; in ancient Rome. In Australia we inherited our concepts of the rule from Britain from Magna Carta 1216 and from the Great Revolution of 1688 when Mary, daughter of the fleeing James the Second, returned to England with her husband, William of Orange, and together they accepted the Crown after acknowledging themselves bound by the Declaration of Right. By that Declaration the power of Parliament was secured against the power of the Crown. The Rule of Law was firmly established.

The meaning of the rule is very simple, every member of the society is bound by the law.

It is the function of the Parliament to make the laws and of the courts to interpret the law and apply it to the facts; but if the Parliament disagrees with the interpretation it may by statute amend the law.

The Rule of Law is fundamentally important. It binds us all.

In Australia the position is slightly different from the UK as we chose a Federal organisation, we have a Commonwealth and State Parliament with different powers to make laws and the High Court having power to rule on their validity.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that I support the Rule of Law. It is crucial to any decent society.

Without the Rule of Law the citizens have no idea as to either rights or duties and no idea as to how to enforce their rights, or the limit of their duties.

But I make it equally clear, that it is absolutely wrong to think the Rule of Law is synonymous with the question of fairness or justice to all.

That depends upon the law.

After Magna Carta, Britain was ruled by the Barons and the King in their own interests; after the Great revolution of 1688 by the Whigs the party of the developing trading and commercial class in the interests of their class. The feudal serfs were driven off the land into the cities and towns to work for the developing industries; the land became privately owned farms or was used for factories or mines; the children were employed in factories; the Tolpuddle martyrs were convicted and deported to Australia for forming a trade union; working men were deprived of a vote for the Parliament until early in the 19th century and the women until the 20th century.

The ruling class rules.

I refer to two great developments which have occurred since World War 11:
1) After the war, following so soon after World War 1, there was a profound wish for peace, for decency, for human rights. The United Nations organisation was established. I think we Australians can be quite proud of the part that our government and Dr Evatt played in its formation. On December 10 1948, the UN agreed, without dissent, and published to the world: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights I quote from the Preamble: “Member states have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the UN, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” and it goes on to set out thirty articles or rights, three of which I refer to (briefly):
a) Article 2 : Every one is entitled to these rights irrespective of race;
b) Article 23 : Everyone has the right to work and to form and join a trade union;
c) Article 25 : Everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of self and family, including food, housing, medical care and social services. I refer later to another Article.
2) On the other hand the economic system which is called capitalism has grown and changed vastly as a result of changes in technology, transport, communication etc. It is now global capitalism, it wields extreme power. The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, the theories of Friedman and Hayek are all of tremendous influence as is above all, the power of the international corporations.

I remind you of what Don Dunstan said in his last speech at the Adelaide Entertainment Centre, April 21 1998, after referring to the domination of global capital: “Their thesis is that, faced with a globalised economy we must reduce government provision of services to the barest minimum; ensure that services are operating in the interest of private profit; ensure that competition and an unregulated market govern production and development of our resources …and that we must totally deny ourselves of the fiscal flexibility to run a deficit budget.”

And he went on to speak of the effect of these doctrines; the selling off by those affected by these doctrines of our great social and public assets in South Australiathe water, the electricity, the winding down of our public participation in the forests, the housing through the Housing Trust, health, education. Don spoke of South Australia, but of course it happened all over the country.

I pause for one moment to record that Don Dunstan gave the right to publish his speech to Australian Options, slightly edited by him, and to print an interview with him, headed “A Healthy Public Sector is the basis for decent Justice”.

I add that Australia is a country which demonstrates the growth of global capitalism with extreme clarity; it is also one of a very few countries which has never legislated for a Declaration of some Human Rights (save for a very recent and very limited Bill in the ACT) . I suggest there is a connection.

I turn now to the question of the relationship of our rights and the law.
This country was colonised by Great Britain and contrary to the facts of the matter the lands of the Aboriginal people were treated as terra nullius . The land was taken by the colonial power. Most of the people were driven into reserves and many had their children taken away; many were killed, either by arms or by introduced diseases; their culture was based on their land and overwhelmingly they lost their land. In the sixties there was the beginning of some change in attitude all over the country. The referendum to give Aboriginal people the right to vote in Federal Elections was carried with huge majorities, it was followed by a growing awareness that Aboriginal people must be given some rights of self determination.

ATSIC was set up, it was chaired for some years by that wonderful South Australian lady Prof. Lowitja O’Donoghue.

It was an effort at self determination in certain aspects of life very important to aboriginal people.. Reconciliation became a major issue.

Now the government introduces legislation to abolish ATSIC. It has passed the lower House, but it has not yet been considered by the Senate. The government proposes that ATSIC should be replaced by a group of three Aboriginal people to be appointed by the government.

I say this, self determination is a fundamental for the Aboriginal people; the concept of the government appointing a committee of three in the name of self determination is a farce. But there is another matter. The ATSIC Act still stands.. The ATSIC Commissioners are still being paid because the Act so provides but they can do nothing because the government has taken away the funds and handed those funds back to the relevant departments. And they do that while the legislation still stands. I understand that the Commissioners are taking this point to the High Court. I would just add that I think that any government has the right to raise a question as to whether a body like ATSIC, or any other body, is the one best suited to the task and can, in this instance, talk with the Commissioners and can talk with other Aboriginal people, hold discussions, put up propositions, but I do not think it can abolish self determination.
I refer very briefly to refugees since in this hall last year we were addressed by the eminent human rights advocate Julian Burnside QC. But just let me say this.
2 of 7
Australian Options – Public Forum
Elliott Johnston QC AO
The rule of law – what it means and how it affects the rights of people
On 14th December 1967 the UN General Assembly voted unanimously (including Australia) for a resolution which repeated Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads: “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. A Labor government voted for the Declaration in 1948; a Liberal government voted for its re- assertion in 1967. Thirty years on we are locking up those who seek asylum in our country from persecution. We are doing that pursuant to our law. The High Court has recently held that it is our Law, the Law made by this government, which says that a person seeking asylum, who has been locked up, whose application for a visa has been denied, who in strict accordance with the Act has written to the Minister and asked to be deported but who cannot be deported, because he is stateless and being so no other country will accept him, is to be locked up and this may be for life. I think that is rather an example of the conflict between legal rights and the concept of human rights.
As I said earlier the Declaration of Human Rights declares that all have a right to employment and to an adequate standard of living. What is our situation?
There is a view widely held that our economy is doing very well, some say better than any other. But certainly well. ACOSS, and other groups, say that our situation is that our rich are getting richer and our poor are getting poorer. Pretty obviously the rich are getting richer; few admit the poor are getting poorer, but I don’t hear many denials. Given the state of our economy how is it that this can happen?
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (August 2004 ) says that we have a labour force of 9.7 million people of which 6.9 million are employed full time, 576,000 are unemployed and 2,271,000 are employed part time. Of course I do not suggest that all those 2,271,000 wanted full time jobs. But I suggest at least 500,000 did. Many say more than that. But what it means is that more than ten percent of our labour force are unemployed or underemployed. How is this in such a successful economy? There are a number of explanations. 1. We all know that the banks have reduced jobs by closing branches and that some companies particularly in the clothing industry have moved a good deal of manufacturing overseas to countries where labour is very cheap. But I suggest that the main reason lies in the efforts particularly of big corporations to reduce both the number of workers and the number of permanent workers.
It is worth looking at a bit of history. Back in 1890 Samuel Griffiths, who became the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, tried to persuade the Queensland government to declare it their duty to legislate for wages: sufficient to maintain the laborer and his family in a state of health and reasonable comfort. (Almost the UN Decaration) With Federation we got an Industrial Tribunal, and employers and
employees were ecnouraged to join organisations and in the latter case trade unions. Justice Higgins declared the first basic wage in the Harvester case and for nearly 90 years we had a Conciliation and Arbitration system which by legislation has ceased to exist, except in a very reduced form, since the early nineties. The consequence of our system was that the person who was in ordinary employment became entitled to a salary, to annual leave, long service leave, public holiday pay, sick leave, protection against unfair dismissal, workers compensation and in some cases maternity leave.

Global capital has set out to change the situation by abolishing conciliation and arbitration, by reducing the number of people employed and the number of people in that full employment which carries these various benefits.

It seeks to do this in two ways in particular:
1) Reducing the number of employees by the working of over time. Recently I went to the office of ABS. Among their new books is one: “Australian Social Trends 2003″. It states that over recent years they have seen a big rise in overtime and that now 28.8% of all full time workers ” work fifty hours per week or more” and they give figures for particular groups ranging from 15.8% to 52.3% of workers. They do not refer to the maximum number of hours worked but it is said that many work up to sixty hours per week. I acknowledge that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for some overtime: eg breaking down of equipment, but this extent is quite extraordinary. The overtime workers get higher overtime pay of course, at least where covered by awards, but it has many savings. Not only less workers with all the entitlements, but space, equipment, plant, tools, administration. It is widely recognised that the reduction of employment is fundamentally concerned with overtime. Faced with a considerable unemployment problem, France has recently legislated for a thirty five hour week and an abolition of over time except in special circumstances. Should we consider such legislation? Not necessarily exactly the same, but certainly some limitation of overtime.
2) Perhaps even more important is the effort of the employers to engage what are sometimes called casuals or part timers or non permanents or another group namely those provided by labour hire firms. As I earlier said there are 2,271,0000 of these or actually 23.4% of the total of the employed work force. There are a lot of disputes over the questions of what entitlement casuals have to other benefits such as annual leave, sick leave, public holiday pay, long service. Particularly intriguing are the labour hire workers. There is great argument as to whether these people are entitled to workers compensation if they are injured at work.
There was a case some two years ago in South Australia where a young lady approached a labour hire firm and obtained what I will refer to for want of a better word, as “employment” with a company growing tomatoes. She had no agreement whatever with that company and supplied nothing except her labour and a pair of gloves. She had a written agreement with the labour hire firm which provided that she would obey the instructions of “the employer”; which acknowledged that there was no employer/employee relationship between herself and the hire company, and acknowledged that she was not entitled to any annual leave,sick leave etc from the hire company. The hire company agreed to pay her a fixed amount for each hour that she worked. The amount that she received was quite significantly less than the award rate for an employee. The hire company had a written agreement with the tomato company whereby the latter made payments to the hire company ,out of which payment of the hourly rate was made to the worker. You will notice that the whole purpose of these agreements is to deny to the worker the status of “employee” and thereby to deny to him/her the rights of an employee. She suffered injury at work. I do not know whether she ever made a claim for compensation against the “employer” but she did against the hire company. It was fiercely contested, both at first instance where they lost and on appeal where they also lost. The SA court declined to follow a Victorian decision. I am sure hire companies will be amending their agreements.
There have been some cases recently where the employer has been held liable for workers compensation. The whole question of the entitlement of these various classes of casual or non permanent or part time or hire workers is a vexed question and urgently in need of settlement. In the meantime I think there is no doubt that the business world is saving itself plenty of dollars by way of working overtime and employing casuals. At the same time they are making problems not only economic but also family and social problems for the working people. It is the trade unions, including in SA. that are trying to do something about these questions. applying for award variations, seeking agreements etc.
The AMWU has recently done an in depth analysis of the position as to these types of employees in the manufacturing industries which they cover. In 1990 there were 1,130 million employed in those manufacturing industries. By 2003 it had fallen by 10.3%. The permanent jobs had fallen by 159, 900; the casual jobs had risen by 71,000. In the manufacturing industries there are alot of labour hire firm workers.There is some other data in Research Note 53 issued 16th September 2004 by the Parliamentary Library of the Federal Parliament. It reports that since 1988 54% of all new jobs created have gone to casual workers.
The position of the Federal government is that it gives no attention whatever to the question of overtime or the casual groups. It is intent on doing away with what remains of arbitration; it supports the Australian Workplace Agreement system which it has legalised by legislation. The AWA is simply the agreement prepared by the employer without any input from other interest. The worker applies for a job; the employer produces the Australian Workplace Agreement; it is take it or leave it between what is often a very wealthy corporate employer and an unemployed worker. On the 28th September 2004 The Advertiser reported:

“The Federal government will inject millions of dollars into luring workers away from unions and onto contracts under a Workplace policy”. Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews will announce today a 12 million package to increase the number of workers on Australian Workplace agreements. The government will also unveil plans to protect small businesses from unfair dismissal and redundancy laws”

This is simply our Government acting on behalf of global capital. It is fundamentally opposed to the Declaration of Human Rights, to declarations which have in the past been supported both by Labor and Liberal governments and incidentally opposed to the ideas of our first Chief Justice of the High Court expressed more than 100 years ago.

The other aspect associated with the poor getting poorer is the treatment of those who are unemployed or those unable to seek employment because of ill health or disability. It is not an area which I have greatly studied. I will say just this. The payments are low; the conditions are extremely strict; the penalties for breach are draconian and the efforts to find work for the unemployed are nil.

There is another matter which I think is universally admitted and that is that the number of homeless people is increasing alarmingly. That surely indicates that the poor are getting poorer.

The evidence is overwhelming that the rich are getting richer.

I was quite astounded recently looking at The Weekend Australian of 18th-19th September 2004, page 38. The page consisted of four different articles and the conclusion of two other articles. Five of them were either mainly or wholly directed to increased pay for corporate leaders. Chief Executives of the 4 main banks were said to have annual salaries of $7.4 million, $7 million, $4.426 million and $2.482 million and the Chief Executive of Macquarie Bank $9.089 million. In quite different and unconnected articles it was said that the Managing Director of Origin Energy received $2.44 million for his years work; the Chief Executive of Bluescope Steel $4.4 million; the Chief Executive of Billabong $1.4 million, and it was said that Mr Ahmed Fahour, ” the 37 year old wunderkind ” (whatever that is )” poached from the local operations of the world’s biggest bank, CitiGroup, was paid $13.3 million in a golden hello just to sign on the National Australia Bank”. I have also read that Mr Packer is about to invest $55 million in some not highly useful British enterprise. Recent reporting from the 4 main banks has some interesting information; together their after tax profit is more than $11 thousand million; the percentage of shares held by their top five shareholders range between 30% and 51 %, and each of their top shareholders is a USA banking group.

Why is it that our laws relate to the question of wages of ordinary workers and are silent on the question of returns for Senior Executives, Company Directors and such like? Why cannot the Industrial Court deal with these matters.

Why is it not possible to amend the tax act so that companies are quite free to pay such amounts as they like to their Directors and Executives but with a proviso that x amount of dollars is to be treated as expense and the balance to be paid out of profit?

In 1998 our Federal government appointed a committee to report on business taxation. It’s report was published in July 1999 entitled: A Tax System redesigned, more certain, equitable and durable. The three members were all Company Directors. The Chair was John Ralph AO, who at the time was Chair of Foster’s Brewery and Pacific Dunlop, Deputy Chair of CBA and Telstra and Director of BHP. I make no comment whatever about the members who were no doubt highly intelligent, but none of them were representative of other than corporate interests. I should be very surprised if any government appointing a committee to report on the tax on wages appointed three workers without other interests having a say.
The Committee, which incidentally placed great emphasis on the globalisation of the economy, recommended a reduction in company tax to 30% (which in fairness I should add the government had told them it desired), it went along with the dividend imputations credit which Keating had introduced ( but I should add also in fairness that at the time he said that the company tax rate should be raised to the highest individual tax rate which at the time I think was 48% ). The 30% tax rate is the lowest company tax rate which has existed since at least World War 2. When the Government actually introduced it they were able to say (and said) that it was recommended by this highly expert committee. The Report (which I produce)
is too long to discuss. But I would like to be able to draw attention to some matters which I respectfully think say a lot about the pro-corporate attitude of the reporters.

However, the matter that I want to draw attention to is the enormous effect of dividend imputation credits (which they endorsed). When the company system was being developed the biggest concern was that if people were involved in what today we would call a partnership, they would not only share the profit but they would be responsible for the losses and so the limited liability company was formed and has of course become the dominant form of company. A shareholder must pay 100 % of the price of his share, but he or she is a totally different person than the company. If the company goes bankrupt the shareholder is not liable at all. They are two entirely different persons. So for years the company paid tax on its profits and the shareholder paid tax on the dividend.

Dividend imputation credits means something entirely different. The company declares a dividend and providing that dividend is paid out of that current years profit, it can fully frank the dividend with a credit which (when the tax rate is 30%) is 3/7ths of the amount of the dividend. Not all dividends are fully franked but 90% is a very reasonable percentage. In preparing the tax return the franking credits are added to the income; the tax is calculated on the resulting total and the total of the credits is then deducted from the total. So A and B each have a yearly taxable income of say $50,000. A’s is wages, B’s is dividends, 90% fully franked. At the current tax rate A’s tax is just over $11,000, B’s tax is nil. When I did this calculation it occurred to me that it would be fascinating to find out what B would have to receive in dividends, 90% franked, before he paid the same proportion of his taxable income in tax as A. The answer is $300,000. He would then pay the same 22% as A pays. I am sure that there can be other matters argued concerning the tax system, but I believe that this is a rather important one.

There is absolutely no doubt that the reason for the development of the limited liability company was to completely separate the personality of the company from that of the shareholder. The shareholder may buy his shares one day before the company declares its dividend and sell them a few days after. The shareholder gets the dividend and he gets the credits. Think of what this does for people who hold 50,000 shares in BHP or ANZ or Fosters etc. The rich are getting richer for all sorts of reasons and some of those reasons are associated with changes to the law and some are associated with failure to make changes. The poor are getting poorer for similar reasons.

Let me turn to two quite different matters.
In 1945 our Federal Parliament passed an Act ” To Approve the Charter of the United Nations” . It was an exceedingly simple act. Four sections only. The last approved the Charter and the Charter was then set out in full in the schedule. The Charter has been amended on a few occasions since and each time the Australian Parliament has passed an Act which records and approves the alteration. Article 39 of the Charter provides that the Security Council: ” shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression” and shall decide the measures to be taken to maintain or restore peace and security. Article 25 of the Charter reads: ” the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. And Article 51 provides that: “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by the members in exercise of this right of self defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in anyway ay effect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council ….. to take at any time such action as it deems necessary….”.

Koffi Anan has said what is obviously true, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. It was obviously so. Iraq, had not made an attack on the United States, on Great Britain or Australia nor threatened to do so. It is acknowledged that Iraq played no part in the attack on September 11 in the United States. The United States, recognising the role of the Security Council in relation to such matters, tried to convince the Security Council to resolve that there should be force used against Iraq. It clearly failed to convince and, in fact, when it became clear that it would not do so the US decided to withdraw it’s resolution (to avoid defeat) and, instead, to launch an invasion. The right to live in peace is a very fundamental right. A right of all people. Our right and the right of the Iraqi people is being trampled on by the aggressors. It is somewhat unclear to me why it is that our government can act in direct opposition to the terms of a Charter which has been approved by our Parliament on several occasions but apparently it is so.

That means that our law is fundamentally at odds with the Charter of the United Nations developed and adopted by people the world over who were determined to seek peace after two world wars.

Finally I refer to a matter which arose perhaps thirty years ago.

Scientists began to express concern about threats to our environment. They were concerned about climatic changes associated with what was called “greenhouse gases”. There was debate and discussion. Finally relevant countries met together in Kyoto and discussed the problem and made a decision usually referred to as The Kyoto Accord, which called upon the major countries to make laws to limit the production of greenhouse gases in their country by certain proportions per year over a certain period of time. Most countries have accepted the Accord; Russia as late as last week. The United States and Australia refuse to adopt the Kyoto Accord.

This question is crucial for us for two main reasons:
1) we produce the greatest quantity of greenhouse gases per capita of any country in the world.
2) Scientists consider because of our geographic situation in the world we face greater threats to our environment from the climatic changes than most other countries.

Why does the Howard government refuse to adopt The Accord? To adopt it would require cuts in the burning of oil, coal and gas.

I quote The Weekend Australia 2-3 October 2004 page 45 under the heading Russia’s Kyoto Deal puts heat on Howard and Co : “Russia’s decision on Thursday to sign the Kyoto Protocol has put fresh pressure on the Australian government and business to accept measures such as carbon trading and taxes that would penalise them for emissions……. ratification of Kyoto by Australia would accelerate the growth of natural gas at the expense of coal …the losers would include BHP Biliton, Rio Tinto and WestFarmers”.

They are three of the biggest companies in Australia and two of the biggest miners (possibly the two biggest). The influence of such companies on the government and the government’s blind following of US policies explains its attitude to Kyoto.
I repeat what I said earlier, I believe in the Rule of Law.

I also believe in justice and the rights of people. I realise that not everybody agrees on exactly what those rights ought to be or on exactly how they should be enforced. I think we agree that we do not want our environment greatly harmed by climatic change ( or indeed other changes). I think we believe that it is unfair for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer at the same time. I think we have an interest in peace. I believe that we do not want to see people locked up, deprived of all liberty because they are attempting to avoid persecution. I think it is crucial in all of our interests that the Aboriginal people and non Aboriginal people become totally reconciled and that the Aboriginal people attain justice and fairness.

We have many problems. We have to find the way forward. I think that we have to end the rule of global capital, its domination of our society. I think we have to talk with others about how this can be achieved .

May I respectfully remind you of the last words that Mr Dunstan used in his great speech to which I have referred. After speaking about the power, the operation, the ideology of global capital he concluded with the words:

“We intervene – or we sink.”……….

I respectfully agree.’

From the website of the Magazine Australian Options Discussions for social justice and political change

http://www.australian-options.org.au

Elliott Johnston was a founding editor of Australian Options

See earlier on this blog including the book ‘Red Silk’

18 November 2011: The UN’s International Labour Organisation has issued a strong condemnation of Fiji’s military Junta over severe violations of labour rights.

The ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association described the situation there as “extremely serious” and requiring urgent attention.

The ruling follows the arrests of Daniel Urai, President of the national trade union centre FTUC on October 29 and Felix Anthony, the organisation’s General Secretary, on 5 November.

Worker representatives have also been subjected to a campaign of harassment, intimidation and physical beatings.

“Fiji’s military rulers are turning the country into an absolute dictatorship, and seem determined to destroy the trade unions as part of their strategy to crush any dissent and eliminate the legitimate voice of civil society,” said ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow.

“The rulers must turn back from this destructive path, and allow Fiji to return to democracy.”

The arrests of Urai and Anthony and the travel bans placed on them, have been linked to union opposition to a recent “essential services decree” which eliminates the right to trade union representation for a large part of Fiji’s workforce.

The decree, written for the military regime by a US law firm, takes away collective bargaining rights for many workers, imposes heavy restrictions on those elected to union leadership positions and removes the right to strike and minimum wages for all the sectors it covers.

“The ITUC and its international trade union partners will be ramping up action against the Fiji junta’s plan to destroy workers’ rights, and is calling on all governments to put maximum pressure on the military rulers,” said Burrow.

http://www.ituc-csi.org/ilo-condemns-fiji-junta-over.html

Speech outside Parliament House, Canberra, Thursday, 17 November 2011
by Humphrey McQueen.

Ten years ago, we were told that we were going to chose who came here. Today, we are exercising that choice by protesting at the arrival of the war and economic criminal Obama. In saying that he and his gang are not welcome we are not turning our backs on the people of the United States. On the contrary, we stand in solidarity with them against the forces that oppress and exploit them and peoples across the globe.

Let’s apply the policy of choosing who can come here to the Obama entourage. Some 600 security agents are here to protect him, presumably from assassination. That number is an insult to Australians. Whatever is wrong with our public life we are not yet subject to the ravings that infect US politics, even though its shock-jock lunacies are being imported. But let’s think more about Obama’s guardians. What is their background? What checks have been made to ensure that none have been CIA kidnappers, torturers and assassins? Who better to protect you against assassination than your own trained assassins?

Refugees are held in detention until ASIO has given them a security clearance. Some suffer behind razor wire for years. Obama’s security team flies in without so much as a by your leave. Their names are state secrets. They get a blanket clearance. Perhaps that is just as well.

Imagine the fate of anyone who tried to serve an arrest warrant on Obama or any one of his minders. Such people are not welcome. If anyone should be detained until we have checked their criminal status, it is these state terrorists.
To make it clearer why they are not welcome, we can indicate some of the US Americans who we do welcome. In running through the reasons for opening our borders to them, we shall see more clearly why Obama is the enemy of us all.

Before explaining who is welcome and why, we must acknowledge that choosing who could come here, or to the Americas or Africa, was not a choice that the invaders gave to indigenous peoples.

Colonisers resorted to force and practiced genocide. Their impacts continue. All that has changed is the scale and methods of dispossession. Hence, we acknowledge the traditional owners. Who will give Obama a welcome to country?

Looking back to the early years of the invasion of this continent who might the original occupants have welcomed? One group was from the US of A but could not be citizens there because they were runaway slaves. Many US citizens helped them to move north to Canada. We hope that the settlers here who opposed the transportation of convicts would have provided sanctuary for those fugitives.
In like manner, we recall the ‘terrorist’ John Brown who raided Harper’s Ferry in 1859 to set up a non-slave republic. His soul is more than welcome to go marching on through Australia.

Of course, the regime of terror for Afro-Americans did not end with their legal emancipation after the Civil War. The spirit of our protest welcomes the ex-slaves and their descendants escaping from Jim Crow Laws and the lynchings that ruled beyond the old South into the 1970s.
Since then there have been judicial lynchings. In September, Georgia executed Troy Davis although the case against him was unsound. Davis joins the hundreds of those executed wrongly. They were convicted because they were poor, black and had been ill-educated. We welcome a humanitarian intervention in the US of A to put an end to this systemic injustice grounded in class and race.

Reverting to the nineteenth century, it is easy to imagine the welcome that the diggers at Eureka gave to the 200-strong Independent Californian Rangers’ Revolver Brigade in 1854. The warmth of that welcome from other miners extended to the Melbourne jury who acquitted the first of the rebels brought to trial, the Afro-American John Josephs, whom the crowd carried through the streets.

Labor leaders

Since Obama’s electoral base is in Chicago, let’s ask which past and present residents of that city would we most like to have with us today.

A police attack on a labor rally in the city’s Haymarket in 1886 led to May Day’s becoming the international celebration of the working class movement. The Pullman rail strike was centred there in 1894. One of its leaders, the Socialist presidential candidate, Eugene Debs, spent time in prison for organising that and other strikes. He later went to jail for his anti-war activities.

The first English translation of Marx’s Capital came from Chicago, as did Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle (1906) about the horrors of working in a meat-packing works. Also from Chicago came the Industrial Workers of the World, known as the Wobblies. They contributed to the fighting strength of Australia’s working class, and were also at the forefront of anti-war movement here to oppose conscription for the slaughter at Gallipoli and on the Western Front.

After one US Wobbly, Joe Hill, was executed in Utah in 1915, his fellow workers sent packets of his ashes around the world, including to Sydney. We welcome every chance to breath life into his ashes, along with the Haymarket martyrs, Debs, Sinclair and all the Wobblies.

From Chicago today we welcome the late community activist Saul Alinsky. Obama stole his methods of organising – ‘Rules for Radicals’ – so that Wall Street could continue to occupy the White House..

As his chief economic advisor, he appointed the man who had de-regulated the financial system, Larry Scum-mers.

As Secretary of the Treasury he appointed Timothy Giethner who presided over Wall Street during its wildest speculations and swindles. Hence, we welcome the US documentary Inside Job which exposes their crimes, as we do the work of Michael Moore.

We also welcome all those involved in the Occupy Wall Street upsurge.

We welcome the Wisconsin teachers and students who initiated the fight-back against the latest attacks on the ability of working people to organise.

These twin movements challenge the resentful rhetoric of the Tea Party. Unlike that body, the occupiers are not in the pay of the plutocracy that dominates US politics and whose power and privileges Obama serves.

Mark Twain
Many of the profoundest critics of the serial criminality of US capitalism are and always have been its own citizens.

Mark Twain was the quintessential voice of US American literature. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn continue to provide models for US fiction. No one could be more ‘American’, yet he has been portrayed as ‘Un-American’. The reason is simple: he condemned the US take-over of the Philippines. Today, we hear about ‘humanitarian interventions. In 1898, the Marines landed to ‘liberate’ the locals from the tyranny of their Spanish colonisers. The US forces soon turned their guns on the independence fighters. In 1900, Twain joined the Anti-Imperialist League, declaring:
I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
He recognised that
we do not intend to free, but to subjugate … We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem

The general order to ‘kill or capture’ became a policy of indiscriminate slaughter. Twain called the US troops ‘Christian butchers’.
Twain had been welcomed when he lectured throughout Australia in 1896. Today, we welcome the lessons he learned about US Imperialism.

Similarly, we have just welcomed a contemporary US citizen, Noam Chomsky, with the Sydney Peace Prize.

Part of Chomsky’s message is that Obama is more dangerous than Bush because he is still able to get away with crimes that were seen as such under Bush. With Bush, the person and the policy were recognised as one.

Obama emerged behind a smokescreen of hope. Bob Brown says he wont protest this time because Obama is ‘wiser, more astute’ than Bush. Sure he is. He is astute enough to sucker Brown.

We extend a welcome to Ralph Nader to return. His Unsafe at any speed sparked the consumer fightback against the auto industry. Never has he compromised with the corporates or with the Democratic machine.

Workers on the Sydney opera house in 1960 went wild when Paul Robeson sang to them. When Pete and Peggy Seeger toured in 1960, the Courier-Mail refused to accept advertisements for their Brisbane concert which nonetheless overfilled the City Hall. We look forward to a tour by Dixie Chicks whose songs were put off the air in 2003 after they told a London audience that they were ashamed to have had George Bush as their governor in Texas. We welcome the successes that their music has had since.

Offers of asylum

Harry Bridges was the Australian-born leader of the West Coast Longshoremen’s Union. The FBI spent decades trying to deport Harry to Australia. As much as we would have welcomed Harry home we rejoice in the success that his members had in keeping him there as a fighter against exploitation.

We will also welcome back non-violent resister Scott Parkin who was deported this time last year. We will welcome home Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, despite Killard’s determination to throw him to the coyotes. We offer asylum to Corporal Bradley Manning.

Today

On top of this liturgy of crimes, there are two new reasons for not welcoming Obama. The first is military and the second is economic, though they are inseparable.

The Darwin base is the base that you have when you are not having a foreign base. The US Marines and bombers are not welcome. Neither are the bases at Pine Gap and Norunga. We are told that those bases are now under Australian control.

In truth, they are managed by Australians who work as agents of a foreign power. That arrangement was put in place in the 1980s by the most significant agent of US influence in our history, R J Hawke. His successors in the trade of selling us out range from Senator Mark Ahbib to Carr and Beasley to Killard.

The other source for alarm is the Pacific Partnership on so-called free trade. Smell the spin-doctors at work with the use of ‘partnership’. What that weasel word means is more domination and control by global corporations. Two aspects are of particular importance.

The first concerns our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Big Pharma wants open slather for their most expensive drugs.

The consequentual cost blow-out will undermine our subsidised system. It will open the way to the abolition of Medicare as an impediment to profit-taking by the corporations that oppose even the modest system of health care proposed by Obama.

The second concern is with the Australian content provisions of the television licensing system. Hollywood executives see those regulations as a restraint on trade. They need to dump more of their programs here. The more networks that have to buy from Hollywood, the more they profit. Of course, the current laws are observed in the breech more than the observance. The media corporates fill up the hours with reality TV and other trivial pursuits. When they do make dramas they mimic Hollywood models.
Why is this latest piece of cultural imperialism important? One reason is to keep jobs here for writers, actors and technicians. But a larger question ties back to the military bases. If we grow up thinking that all music and movies come from somewhere else, we are being indoctrinated to accept that that somewhere else must know best for us on far more than entertainment. The claim is not that Australian screen culture is the best in the world. The point is that we need our own second-rate stuff. We need our own day-dreams. Without them, we are more susceptible to accepting military bases and trade deals that open the door to plunder. To occupy our imaginations is what the Pentagon calls soft power.

How best can we help those from Wisconsin to Wall Street? The way we can help US working families who are also victims of US monopolisers is to weaken their grip on the one part of the world over which we as Australians can have some influence.

Only the people of the US can destroy US Imperialism. We cannot do that for them anymore than they can free our lives from domination by the US military-industrial-congressional-academic complex.
The US rebels at Eureka pledged to stand truly by each other. Our presence here today renews that pledge among our fellow Australian workers and to the millions of US citizens who are stirring against the monopolising capitalists. The unity that counts is unity in action.

The more we Australians act in unison, the more we shall realise that the fault is not in the Stars and Stripes, but in our own politics, if we remain underlinings.

Humphrey McQueen is a labour historian and his new book on the history of
the Builders’ Labourers Federation
‘We Built This City” 2011
has just been published – see earlier a post on this blog.

Read also
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_does_obama_suddenly_want_a_war_with_china_20111122/