Tell me again, why do we need these laws?

ASIO has managed to obtain information from phone companies by lying about warrants being obtained. DIMIA has imprisoned Australians for up to 5 years because somehow they couldn’t manage to work out these people weren’t illegal immigrants… and all this under our current laws!

Now the state governments and territories are set to agree the laws with only a few minor changes.

Things are in a pretty poor way when the Citizens Electoral Council is on the side of those opposing these laws. These are the people who want to declare a real war on drugs…

The groundswell has started, problem is that there may not be enough time to get the critical mass happening…

Under the new laws the government opposition party is technically breaching the law as it wants to ‘bring down’ the government.

If public servants can’t manage to obey the laws we currently have, how can we expect to be protected when the new laws are so ambiguously framed? Public servants are no longer independent, they are rewarded when they follow the government line, not when they administer the laws of the land correctly..

You may not think this affects you, but it does. I’ve heard these laws called the most draconian in the ‘west’. So does that mean that we’re now slipping over to the side of the ‘bad guys’ like Burma, where house arrest (that’s what home detention is) is a tool to control dissent? Even Burma will be more free than us as there people can talk about it. Here it will be 5 years in jail….

If you still have doubts, read this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/10/27/1130400311075.html?from=rss

As someone who fears that in the next couple of days one of their citizenship rights is about to be removed under the current laws, I’m not happy.

Biometrics

Biometrics is soooo fashionable at the moment. Everybody want a piece of it.. The Australian government has decided that from 1/8/05 all people renewing passports would have to agree to their photograph being used for biometric purposes. However, if you applied before 30/7/05 you wouldn’t be asked to. Sounded ok, after all that’s the law… Then I tried to apply online before that date. What I found was the form had the biometrics clause. Then my antennae for sharp practices started twitching.. When I asked the passport office what they would use the biometric data for, they told me that they didn’t know as the legislation hadn’t been written yet. I was also told that they didn’t have the technology to issue passports with the biometric data yet and so any passports issued wouldn’t be biometric. I was then told that if I didn’t agree to the biometrics clause in the application then they wouldn’t issue a passport, which effectively deprives me of one of my citizenship rights. I suspect I’m the only person in this country who objects to giving a blanket agreement for the government to use my data in anyway it feels like. I rang my local MP, after all if the legislation hasn’t been written yet there’s still a chance to have safeguards put in. The office worker didn’t know what biometrics was and couldn’t see the problem! Stupidity isn’t the sole preserve of the great unwashed, it seems to be a common theme in this country.. It’s not just here though – even the Telegraph newspaper in the UK – not renown for it’s liberal (that’s small ‘l’ ) thinking had this to say: ‘Many readers of this newspaper, if the letters we receive are anything to go by, are relaxed about the aggrandisement of state power, believing that "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". In reality, though, innocence is no defence: barely a week goes by without our printing the story of an honest citizen who has been caught up by the bungling of some state bureaucracy. Inch by inch, this administration is turning Britain into a very different kind of country. That we should be letting it happen without a murmur says little good about us.’ http://tinyurl.co.uk/2lkt At least they report abuses of state power – here it’s not considered news.. With the advent of IT, the collection of data for data’s sake is a common problem around the world. Every time you use a credit card or loyalty card you give corporations detailed information about your habits. Now by our indifference, we’re allowing the government the same power without any restraint. You can choose not to give corporations identifiable information, but you can’t defy the government. When 1984 finally came around, Orwell’s book was shrugged off as irrelevant. He was just around 20ish years too early… You’ve got more chance of being run down by a bus than you have being involved in a terrorist attack, and there’s no reason for biometrics or the current anti-terrorist laws except as a means of control of the population… Democracy is not about being ‘allowed’ to elect the next group to control us – it’s about having a vision of the society you wish to live in and electing people on your behalf to maintain and improve it. We’d do well to remember this. so, I've applied for a passport - and refused to agree to the biometrics stuff - it will be interesting to see what happens.... stay tuned...

'The best form of welfare is to have a job' - for whom?

So, Kevin Andrews thinks that having a job is the best form of welfare…. For whom? From where I’m standing the only people who truly benefit are the employers. Moving corporate welfare from the government (on behalf of a grateful nation remember) directly to the workers is yet another step back to the 19th century..

A mark of a civilised country is how we treat all our people. Survival of the fittest is fine when existence is hand to mouth, but we’ve moved well beyond that. We now can afford to bring the weakest and less able to defend themselves along with us and should be able to treat all with respect, not just those who have money, power or the most lethal weaponry…

This rejection of the things that define us is intrinsic to the current governments’ ideology. Australia has just abstained from a UN vote which would begin the process of a convention to protect cultural diversity around the world, which could have been used to temper some of the excesses of the WTO. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1484372.htm) 150 of the 191 member states voted for it, but it wasn’t enough. I suppose we demonstrated our independence by abstaining rather than rejecting it as the US did, but it’s a pretty sad day when our government doesn’t even think our culture is worth preserving.. In the choice between trade and the people, the people lose.

How laissez-faire capitalism got such a grip on governments is easy to see – follow the money… The biggest mystery is why people can’t see that this is not in their best interests is beyond me. How did we ever allow a section of our society (the economy is just one part of a greater whole) to get so out of control that it distorts the rest.

We are not servants of the economy – the economy is a servant of society.

For those of you who have forgotten just what laissez-faire is see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Beware of the leopard

Beware of the leopard, it never changes its spots.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry of the IR and counter terrorism legislations. Both leave me with a profound feeling of depression.

Supposedly John Howard’s approval rating has gone up in the last few weeks. I just don’t know what to say. I suppose the vast majority of Australians think that neither piece of legislation will apply to them. I am assuming that these people actually can think of course. Assumptions are a dangerous thing.

The government has modified the IR legislation to counteract the union campaign. Howard then had a meeting with the people who he thought would be most interested – business ‘leaders’. No representative of those most affected has been scheduled, or is likely. Even the churches are beginning to stand up – not that it will do them much good.

Howard lost out trying to weaken the power of the ACCC – another piece of legislation that smacked of a favour for friends in low places. Highly unlikely Mr Joyce will ever cross the floor again. After Mark Vaile has a piece of him when he gets home, I’ll be surprised is Barnaby will walk easily ever again.

It’s a pretty sorry state of affairs when those who oppose the changes the current government are trying to bring in have only Mr Joyce to rely on to keep the changes from impacting too much.

Barnaby Joyce – a national party senator from Queensland is now the poster boy for the left. What kind of country is this??!!

It’s pretty obvious that the IR laws will be followed by a change to welfare entitlement. Howard only wants to talk about how these changes apply to people who are going back into the workplace after a spell of unemployment. Effectively the workers will be subsiding the employer by agreeing to forgo all conditions that workers would usually have, just so they can work.

Howard says that if would be employees don’t like it they can say no. Those who receive unemployment benefits don’t have that option. They’ll lose their payment if they refuse a job. I don’t call that choice.

If the unemployed do managed to avoid this exploitation, I’ll lay bets the next thing that happens is that the amount of time someone can receive welfare payments is time limited as it is in the US. This will force the unemployed into exploitative contracts through sheer economic necessity.

For the government, the beauty of this is that the government will no longer have to pay the short term subsidies that it currently pays to employers if someone who is long term unemployed is hired. Saves the government money, the employers the time and effort of having public servants sniffing around to make sure they’re behaving towards their employee properly and of course the subsidy goes for as long as the employee works for them.

The bonus of course is that employers can force down wages of everyone else as once these people have been employed for a while they’ll be experienced – and then if the current experienced people are being paid a pittance, why shouldn’t everyone?

As one of Howard’s brave new world labour market participants I’m lucky. I gain around 25% more than an equivalent permanent employee and they gain the freedom to fire me with 24hrs notice and no reason. I have absolutely no rights nor entitlements.

The only reason I get more than the permanents is that I work in an industry that has a shortage of skilled people. I’m lucky, I earn enough to survive the periods of unemployment that comes during the lull between contracts. There are few of these industries around and those that aren’t in that kind of industry will find they can ill afford the side effects of the contract market and so will bear the brunt of the sharp practices imposed upon them by their prospective employers. I'm subjected to very sharp practices by those who have a greedy eye. It's taken a long time for me to be able to get infomation on what is a reasonable settlement and therefore be adequately recompensed for my labour - and usually I still lose out. What chance have others got?

The casualisation of labour is a serious issue and the consequences for those who are affected are grave. These people cannot get loans as they don’t have a permanent job nor do they have any guarantee of work. With the introduction of these unfair dismissal ‘reforms’ anyone who works in a company with under 100 people is effectively casual labour. It doesn’t matter what they think the contract says.

It makes me want to weep.

Three irritants

first the deportation from Australia of Scott Parkin, an US peace activist accused of terrorism... His 'crime' was that the security services believed that he was a threat to Australia as he was going to run a workshop to teach Australians how to resist police. As I understand it, the workshop was supposed to be about non violent resistance as a way to ensure the protest messages are not drowned out by the sensational reporting of violent responses to police heavy handedness. He claims that when interviewed by the security service here no-one mentioned this and never told him why he was being deported. Welcome to the beginnings of the totalitarian state.

Australia certainly beats Israel hands down in this. Australia didn't try to hide the fact they want him gone, refused to give reasons, and billed him for the privilege. The reason why he went quickly and voluntarily was that they were charging him for his lodgings whilst they had him in jail. All up the bill came to AUD 11,000 - pretty impressive. This is something Israel should certainly consider if it's really serious about deporting all those pesky activists that it calls terrorists - after all, done this way and with a large bill to be paid if they every want to re-enter the country, it would cut down on the number of people wanting to try to stop them breaching all those UN Resolutions (I think there's around 64 of them that Israel is currently ignoring) and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

second is the proposed introduction of new 'terror' laws. What can I say? They rarely use the current ones, and these new ones seem to be more about controlling the actions of the population rather than targeting terrorists. Unsurprisingly, our Muslims are concerned. When you look at how the current laws have been applied to the Scott Parkin, we all should be.

Third is that council in Sydney refusing an application for someone to have deckchairs on the beach and hire them out. One of the council called it UnAustralian. He was right - as an UnAustralian I would certainly have appreciated it.