May 30, 2007

run a mighell, comrade

change is slow and often painful; some evolve during the process, others cling to the nearest rock screaming a resistant "noooo!!!!" there are elements of the union movement in each category; dean mighell has again shown himself to be the poster boy for the latter.

mighell had his alp membership resignation requested today, following the publication of "thuggish", "unacceptable" and "obscene" comments made and taped at a conference last november at which mighell described as a "bullshit stunt" the accumulation of millions of dollars of members' entitlements from stupid employers. today dean had the following to say:

i guess the disappointing thing is if julia gillard or kevin rudd had have rung and said, 'look dean . . . the howard government's running this tape out. what are your thoughts on it? why did you say the things, what context do they sit in?' i'd have a fair bit more respect for their position. you shouldn't call a union official dumb for getting the best deal they can for their members.

dean, i think you miss the point entirely. no-one is calling you dumb, let alone dumb for trying to get the best agreement for your members - but as the song goes, it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. and as for having "a fair bit more respect for [rudd and gillard's] position", what about your respect for the current position of the alp? the relationship between unions and the alp has always been coalition scaremongering fodder; why feed the machine? public comments about the stupidity of employers agreeing to conditions for workers and how you're personally rorting the system achieves nothing for anyone, apart from feeding your ego as, what, a man to be reckoned with? where's your media-skilling?

mighell accused the government of "leaking" his comments "as part of a political campaign against the unions". duh. who wouldn't? rg reiterates: why feed the machine? in an etu media statement today, mighell states, "make no mistake, the only reason my comments are in the news is because howard is in trouble. this is nothing but an attempt to stop people thinking about the harm workchoices has done to working people." wrong. the only reason your comments are in the news is because the bully-boy in you can't not be heard; you put them out there, comrade. and as for the stopping people thinking about the harm workchoices has done to working people - don't you see you arrogantly suggested that your members are better off because of your duping of employers? what exactly is the impact of workchoices for your members that you're referring to? get on message or shut the fuck up; rg hates people who say they're fighters and team players and then hog the ball and cry foul.

sigh. leopards and their spots? what do you think?

for the record, rg is a firm believer in the necessity for unions and has proudly been a member of several and a workplace representative for a couple.

priceless

rg never thought there'd be a headline with "howard" and "crazy" in it at the same time, but today the age came good with this pearler: "flustered howard sounds a little crazy."

parliament served some hot and spicy morsels to whet rg's appetite yesterday; the pm's spittle flying across the lectern was most likely the steam between his ears precipitating. rg has never seen howard turn red with rage or frustration before. huzzah for there being a first time for everything.

kevin rudd is the smoothest, most articulate speaker on the block - and refreshingly so without the chest beating of beazley or the arsehole-ishness of keating, though gold in itself. his tone and delivery is note perfect. he has a gift for simple questions, keeping on topic and, most beautifully of all, chastising with conviction. after obscene obfuscation regarding an advertising campaign for climate change, the pm challenged rudd to move a censure if he had the courage - which rudd did.

after four terms in government, it seemed to rg that it had slipped the press' and opposition's minds that they could take the government to task. yesterday seemed to be a wake-up call. no wonder the sun shone so brightly today.

selling the farm

rg has given a lot of thought to the should she/shouldn't she debate surrounding therese rein's decision to sell the australian arm of her successful job placement business. there are several points of irritation surrounding the whole affair i'd like to briefly explore.

1) 'clever' headlines, such as "too early to rein on parade", "sacrifice by wife keeps grip firm on rudder", "rudd's wife tries to rein in damage" and a slew of others rg can't be bothered mentioning. note to editors: get over it...please.

2) rein's "kevin comes first" comment. pardon? if rg had an international business worth $170 mil that had been built over 18 years, RG would be coming first, the business second and anyone else could take a deli number, spouse included. a lot of insightful, even-handed and graceful comments have been made by rein over the last week; "kevin comes first" is not one of them.

3) why is this even an issue? rein and rudd have been open about the business, its government involvement insofar as contracts are concerned and the proposition of selling or stepping down should rudd take the mantle of pm. when a problem or an error presents itself, as it has recently in the form of employee contracts, the most successful approach is no doubt to be candid, honest and speedy in rectifying it, as has been evidenced by both rudd and rein - nip it in the bud. rg thinks there's been an extreme overreaction to an 'embarrassing' stuff-up.

4) rg is in a quandary over seeing the actions of therese rein as borderline heroic, and therefore elevating her status as a role model for women, or as detrimental to women and their status in personal and professional roles. the absolute grace with which she has carried and conducted herself - and yes, rg firmly believes this is the best description - is inspiring. but bottom line is, she's given up something precious, valuable and hard-won because of her spouse and what other people might think of her, and him. perhaps rg has a skewed view of australian voters, but my money is on there being a lot of people - especially that 50>% of the population - that would have great respect had she fought to retain on principal.

all that aside, it's early in the campaign and voters have more important things to think about than rein's business affairs. climate change, workchoices, superannuation, health, education...find rg one person who thinks rein's company's auditor's stuff-ups are more important than these and you may have a lollipop.

May 26, 2007

with rg away, pollies will play

rg stepped away from the computer for a week, during which time several interesting things happened on the australian political front, such as:

1) feverish checking of diaries by the pm and opposition leader as to whether they were free to meet the dalai lama during upon his visit. rg was particularly infuriated with kevin rudd's response of "me-too-ism", stating no meeting would take place only to renege upon hearing howard would consult his diary. rudd of all people should have taken a more diplomatic approach to set him self apart, not copy; he is a man of great diplomatic experience, and as such should clearly see the importance of extending respect to dignitaries of all walks, rather than fearing alienation from one particular country, in this case china. moreover, rg has no doubt china has been on the receiving end of such politically fragile diplomatic meetings (with rudd no doubt) and would ultimately survive this perceived insult. rg doesn't think the public really cared too much over the brian bourke shenanigans a few months ago, but the dalai lama is someone the public connect with more and not handling this correctly is, in rg's opinion, the first significant stumble for labour.

2) the citizenship test. need i say more? with a government constantly dribbling about mateship, a fair go and what's un-australian, rg struggles to understand how the irony of testing for these 'values' goes unnoticed. the test is a spoof, but rg looks forward to the government's book upon which the test is purportedly based - "the australian way of life", apparently being drafted by the immigration department. rg urges readers to bear in mind this is gospel (is that judaeo-christian?) according to the herald sun; reader discretion advised.

3) style over substance - another swipe taken at julia gillard. first it was everyone's favourite parliamentarian, bill heffernan, trumpeting the deputy opposition leader was unfit to lead the nation due to her "deliberately barren" lifestyle; now joe hockey is using general appearance as a reason the public are more receptive to labor's ir agenda than the government's. rg can't determine if hockey's comments are more moronic or offensive. the caveman cometh in the form of the current workplace minister, flashing liberal party archaic thinking. you don't see peter costello and wayne swan bagging the other's haircut or choice of suit as reason - reason! - for their success/loss in polls; their debate focuses on policy, performance and a bit of mud-slinging. yet somehow the fact that there's a woman - an experienced, impressive one at that - on the scene with her eye fixed on deputy leader opens the door for schoolyard sledging - "well, julia gillard is ... in women's weekly and all those things, and i'm not as pretty as julia gillard, obviously." obviously. that could be the only reason your party is choking and back-flipping on workchoices, joe; you're not as pretty. imagine the power of julia gillard's hair! it should have its own political party, such is the influence it wields. if the government want to win, it needs to keep its eye on the prize and do some aggressive policy debate and challenge labor on their proposals. but it's not. it's making surface attacks that are enraging to women, laughable at their best, and utterly desperate at their worst.

4) a clayton's leadership challenge; the challenge you have when you're not having a challenge. howard's use of language such as "annihilation" laid the underdog status on thick for the public to lap up - but interestingly they didn't. polls still show labor ahead full-stop. that aside, rg is intrigued to watch john howard speak - he is a master of semantics (who remembers core and non-core election promises?) and this punter is confident this testing of the leadership waters within the party room is nothing more than a play-within-a-play for the public - a quick way to get an interested audience is to stage a bit of biffo and a power struggle. this is better than 24...

5) therese rein, kevin rudd, awa's and the whole scrambled lot. a separate post will be added by rg promptly.

what a week!

May 15, 2007

women, work, babies and other big stuff

legal eagle and miss v have astutely brought to fore the current coverage of howard government rhetoric towards 'stay-at-home mums', and the apparent 'punishment' of women who choose to become parents.

the government's self-promotion as family-friendly leaves a lot to be desired. when looking at paid childcare - including costs, availability, quality, standardisation of learning etc - it's hard to see where the government actually assists in real terms; that can also be said of assistance to the stay-at-home mums howard refers to in this article. rg thinks the government believes women have partners with delicious incomes to take care of them like in the golden days of yore.

the human rights and equal opportunity commission chief john von doussa has said women are 'punished' in the workforce for creating the next generation. i prefer the term marginalised. women are financially marginalised in three key aspects: loss of income and job security; no standard for paid maternity leave, and significantly lessened superannuation contributions. as a general rule, women lose income for a substantial period of time, often re-entering the workforce at the end of their 12 months unpaid leave on a part-time basis. less money earned = less super = less financial independence. this is a colossal challenge as a feminist: embracing the maternal role, caring for your child, watching your career drift onto a different level and losing retirement security in the process. the world is geared toward double incomes; this loss of financial security effectively sentences women to partner-up in order to financially survive past their child-bearing years.

in lieu of paid maternity leave, the government has offered the baby bonus. the good news is, if you have private health cover the $4000 baby bonus might cover your obstetrics bill. true it is when you have a child all incoming money (note, not income) is to be cherished, but $4000 shows lack of reality. a lump sum also shows lack of commitment to women and mothers (it's noted not all carers are mothers); it's something that appears politically generous but isn't; there's no long-term thinking being applied to the situation. i view it more as hush money - here's your cash, now bugger off!

years ago the world health organisation stipulated paid maternity leave for 16 weeks should be compulsory for all women. 16 weeks is what the organisation believes is the minimum time a woman needs to physically recover from birth. this doesn't take into account how long it can take to psychologically recover from birth. for government to live up to its family-friendly rhetoric, legislation in line with the WHO recommendations, coupled with appropriate assistance for psychological recovery (seeing a psychologist is great, but when you're still out of pocket $80 after the medicare rebate, it can it financially prohibitive) would be a start.

generally, women earn less than men, have less superannuation, hold fewer executive positions, have less job security and have their careers paused with query for recovery and advancement. in addition, losing paid time at work for doctor's appointments, morning sickness, pregnancy complications not only mucks with money, but also with workplace relations. i have known women who have resigned months before their intended departure date simply because a healthy work environment had become completely untenable; sometimes it's easier to go and cut your losses. should the time to return to PAID work rear its head, that's when the real balancing comes in. taking into account daycare, transport costs, additional food expenses, stress and inflexibility as far as working hours due to childcare time commitments, the real cost of returning to paid work can be a break-even exercise, if not a financial loss. yet another way women are marginalised - the money/independence/career or the baby? what a crippling choice.

such are the ways women are marginalised, punished, isolated, challenged and disenfranchised due to their phenomenal biological ability to create, grow and birth another human being. let me say that again - their phenomenal biological ability to create, grow and birth another human being. RESPECT. it's a sad reflection of a society that doesn't see the value and power of that role, the strength that women discover and demonstrate when submerged in it. what a gift to our community.

why is it men telling women they are family-friendly? women are not a burden that need to be 'managed' or discreted away when they have children. women don't stop being women when they have babies; mothers are not creatures with no sense of self, dreams, wants and needs. most would argue children come first, but the balancing is constant. sometimes the mum needs to come first, and it's this point the government misses every single time.

improbable beauty


this from this morning's age online:

"on a country road near ballarat, the webs of baby orb weaver spiders shimmer in the sunlight to create a scene of improbable beauty."

ghostly gorgeousness.

May 14, 2007

the big dry

i visited friends on saturday and as i walked in, one of them was enjoying a sunny bowl of cornflakes. so effective is kellogg's' advertising from a decade ago, the first words out of my mouth were, "the simple things in life are often the best," a successful campaign for the humble flake that lasted a long time (or at least seemed to, in my ever-aging memory).

it's a truism, a cliche, something you say when you need filler. but in the case of this article, the concept seems to have been missed entirely.

every day i ponder melbourne and australia's water crisis. each time i wait impatiently for the hot water to come through i watch litres of water run down my drain. water as an non-renewable resource has, i believed, reached the forefront of joe and jane average's minds. but not, apparently, the forefront of water minister john thwaites' mind.

it seems a simple enough equation: critically low water reserves = in kind water restrictions. the victorian government is waiting until august 1 to decide whether or not to introduce stage 4 restrictions, rain pending. they created an in between restriction level of 3A, given the public would have apparently flipped their collective lids if stage 4 had been introduced. now they're waiting.

this is what's unfathomable to me: why wait? why not introduce a new restriction and save even more water? train people now how to best use it; what to tweak in their lifestyle before crunch time. thwaites has isolated two groups - the nursery and car-washing industry - as a key reason to not ban outside watering as per stage 4. two industries = an entire state's betterment? can anyone spell subsidies?

the simple things in life are often the best, and water conservation is not rocket science. do i care if my local park is less green than usual? no. not because compared to my backyard everything looks like the botanical garden; i'm happy to part with lawn and have a dirty car if it means people in ballarat, bendigo, shepparton....and the rest of the state have water to drink, grow food and feed livestock.

how big does the big picture on the big dry need to be?

getting the balance right

there's a percentage of people who don't really hold a strong political view either way; their views and votes are more fluid than their dyed-in-the-wool counterparts. again, each to their own; neither is a better way to approach politics, or life.

in fact, i often wonder whether it would be better to be a swinging voter and be more flexible in my views. perhaps it's the true believer who's not able to see what's really happening because they are blinded by their dedication to a party or philosophy.

i'm a left-of-centre kind of person, with an inclination to lean further left than centre. that said, i try to keep an open mind and hear what everyone has to say. seriously. it's hard when most arguments are squashed into 10 second sound bites, and sadly lateline at 10.30pm is pushing my parental sleep requirements, so i rely on online papers to give me a bit more info than the 7 o'clock news. sometimes they do; sometimes not.

this is my first election as a parent, and i'm interested to see how my 'needs' have changed; have my views for the future, now my daughter's future, changed? what would it take to secure my vote - is it even up for grabs?

if the coalition had vision and healthy social policy, i honestly think i may stop and consider. it's tempting to listen to positive economic spin and disregard the rest. but the true believer in me remembers paul keating introducing massive reforms before his exit, the key reason for the past 10 years' balance sheets. i remember hospital closures/downgrades, school funding slashing, tampa, vsu ... and that's a lot to choose not to remember.

the trick is to get the balance right between practical and passion; i've struggled with it over the years, but as i get older i think i get more tolerant and less wound-up - hopefully this will last a couple of decades before i revert to being old, ranting and slightly insufferable.

May 13, 2007

budget time

unless you were hiding somewhere warm and safe this past week, you will have noticed there's been a bit of budget brou-ha-ha going on. it must be said, i love nothing more than a good election campaign, a bit of budget biffo and the promise of an election year - that coupled with a tasty merlot, a comfortable couch and privacy for my rantings is simply hedonism.

i watched peter costello intently on tuesday night, listened earnestly to his words, promises, cash injections and the like, trying to see where the pitch was going. some readers may think budget announcements are dull, to say the least. rg says, the devil is in the detail so WAKE UP!! for half an hour, once a year, a politician that you pay for (and in so many ways) has the nation's entire bank balance in their hot, clammy hands. then they spend it. where do you fit in? how does this change your life, or those in your world? this is the stuff we all should care about; take an interest in. if someone walked into my house, took my credit card, mortgage title, savings details and anything else money-related and said, "rg, take a load off, i've got this covered so just relax," i think i'd (a) attack them, (b) interrogate them as to how they think they can spend my money better than me, and then (c) call the police. perhaps not in that order, apart from (a).

so why the difference with a federal budget? it covers tax rates, national infrastructure, biggies like water and climate protection (in theory), education, inflation, health (sometimes, but not this time) - all the essentials in our lives. how can this be boring? and in an election year, how can it be unimportant?

it's just not good viewing, i understand. at the best of times, there's something about costello that makes me want to slap him, even when he's not smirking. i suspect i'm not alone there. it's a big ask to stare at him as he pretends to be kind and generous and dole out national funds for an entire 30 minutes. but it's necessary. budget week is one of those rare weeks in an election year that if you're not paying attention, you miss a lot of the foundations that are carefully laid by each party as they rev their engines and start the fight on real turf - m-o-n-e-y - and battle for the hearts and minds of the public (i love that phrase!).

if you're the kind of person who's only interested in tax cuts, fair enough; each to their own. BUT is that cost of a pizza each week worth voting for a party who doesn't even mention health in the annual budget? it's worth sitting through the fiscal version of 'he said/she said' budget and opposition reply speeches for some food for thought, if nothing else.

votes are like virginity - something precious that you don't want to throw at the nearest dick asking for it. they have to be earned. the person holding it ought be respected, not lied to, conned or generally screwed over. you've got no idea who's trying to get into your pants if you don't ask questions or get informed.

the flirting is over; foreplay is just beginning.

the art of integration

rg is a time-poor parent and political punter whose two previous (and sorely neglected) blogs secretly got it on, merging into a one-stop-shop for parental and political venting.

the mother load invites comments or ideas for discussion.

but more importantly, the mother load welcomes you.