The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Playing the politics of distraction > Comments

Playing the politics of distraction : Comments

By Natasha Cica, published 1/6/2007

The business affairs of Therese Rein, and the potential political implications for Kevin Rudd, probably reveal more about us than about them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I don’t see the scrutiny of Therese Rein’s business as selective or unwarranted at all.
The fact of the matter is, the alternative Prime Minister’s wife is running a company which has benefited from employment policies that differ dramatically from the ALP’s own policies. Whether the corporate entity in question was recently acquired by, a subsidiary of or not directly controlled under the structure of Rein’s own authority is immaterial. She was still profitting from its operations.
The questions have to be asked (a) Why is it acceptable/ good business practice for Rein to negotiate individual contracts when its not for other employers (b) How can a company that is worth $148 million be compared to ‘small business’ (c) how is it that Rudd’s own wife can be running a labour hire company that’s very nature undoubtedly would not be popular with the unions while Rudd is leader of the ALP.
What Australians have yet to wake up to is the fact that Rudd is about as ‘left’ as Costello. He doesn’t believe in militant unions. His wife certainly hasn’t shown much faith in ALP employment policy. The Rudd’s are loaded by virtue of the governments policies over the last decade. The problem for Australia is that if Rudd gets in, he won’t be running the country- no two ways about it
Posted by wre, Friday, 1 June 2007 9:27:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey wre

You say that if Rudd gets in, he won’t be running the country. Can you let us all in on it? Who will? And if you can spare the time to give us some evidence that would be most helpful too.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 1 June 2007 10:40:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank
Anybody with a little nouse knows that the unions will be running the country if the ALP forms government under Rudd (or any other leader for that matter).
Evidence? Just for staters:

(a) a leopard doesn’t change its spots-the ALP has been founded, funded and directed according to unionist agendas since forever;
(b) funding for the ALP campaign coming from the unions represents a larger percentage than that from any other group;
(c) since Rudd gave the ALP hope, preselections throughout the country have been dominated by the union movement, especially in Victoria. Outside of Victoria, Combet has been ‘given’ a plum electorate even though he has never lived or worked there before. The incumbent has been kicked out. Unfair dismissal perhaps? (there’s an irony);
(d) everytime Rudd and Gillard even try to take a concilatory approach with small business/ big business/ the chamber of commerce etc, the unions brand them as ‘sell outs’. There is not even a hint of compromise. If Prime Minister, how is Rudd going to rein in the militant unions and prevent industrial action/ strikes (which are at the lowest levels ever). Blokes like Mighell are not an exception to the rule- they are the rule; and
(e) Crean, Macklin et al (joined by Combet et al) owe plenty of people favours-most of them influential unionists. Do you really expect Rudd to be capable of bottling up all those expectations? If you do you’re in dream land.

I could go on but the answers are all obvious. Unfortunately, I think australians are so keen to see Howard off that they have forgotten to think about just how bad the alternative could be
Posted by wre, Friday, 1 June 2007 11:10:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But wre, you just said that:

"What Australians have yet to wake up to is the fact that Rudd is about as ‘left’ as Costello. He doesn’t believe in militant unions."

If that's the case, how is it logical to say the militant unions will run the place under Rudd?
Posted by chainsmoker, Friday, 1 June 2007 2:03:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes, wre, quite right, dee's as bad as dum.

but for really dumb- the people who go on voting for pollies year after bloody year and are surprised when they are ruled by politicians, not by good managers, not by good planners, certainly not by their favorite uncle- just politicians.

it's the system, people. you want a better result, you need a better system.
Posted by DEMOS, Friday, 1 June 2007 2:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wre
So the unions will run Australia because the ALP is controlled and funded by the unions? Actually the evidence is that the ALP’s largest income comes from John Curtin House (ALP's Canberra building) earning 7 times that of the donation by any union. Funds from other sources including businesses (23% in 2000/01) match the unions’ contribution.

Your implication that funding means control prompted me to look at how the Liberals are funded. For the last election, the biggest individual donation ($1m) came from a foreign businessman, Lord Ashcroft, whose overseas tax dealings are controversial to say the least. Why would he donate that much to the Libs in Australia?

Large private donations are hardly given to political parties to advance the quality of Australian democracy. They come either to buy access and favours or to reward policies that advantage them.

Major donors to the Libs include five ‘front’ organisations controlled by the Party:
• the Cormack Foundation ($1.8m) directed by Hugh Morgan, businessman and Howard-appointee member of the Reserve Bank; and John Calvert-Jones, Liberal Party Treasurer and brother-in-law of Rupert Murdoch;
• Greenfields Foundation (an interest-free ‘loan’ of $4.6m);
• Free Enterprise Foundation ($.891m);
• Menzies Research Centre ($30,179 in 2004/5 but $.327m since 1998/9); and
• The 500 Club (not so much a ‘front’ as a direct fund-raiser).

In addition to that, Electoral Commission figures show that big businesses and right-wing groups (such as Exclusive Brethren) donate handsomely to Liberal coffers.

So using your logic that he who pay the piper calls the tune, we can conclude that if Howard is re-elected we can expect the interests of big business to dominate such policy areas as climate change, taxation and corporations law.

Recently Howard changed the law on political donations: you can now donate up to $10300 (previously $1500) without public disclosure. This change favours big donors who can now give up to $10299 in each of nine separate cheques made out to separate federal, state and territory divisions of the same political party without public scrutiny.

Money buys access to power whichever party forms government.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 1 June 2007 2:50:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I don't agree with much of what wre sys, I think his the point about the reason for Rein ditching her company is right. It's nothing to do with conflict of interest, or double standards for pollies' wives, but is because her actions are not compatible with the party's line on the preferred behaviour of employers. Just as the media have great fun with the ideological differences of the Costello brothers, the fact of Rein not practicing what Rudd preaches would be a source of endless entertainment and would undermine the plausibility of Rudd’s IR policies.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 1 June 2007 3:19:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenneth Davidson writing in THE AGE yesterday, goes to the core of the confliction.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/37jsmj
Posted by clink, Friday, 1 June 2007 4:53:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, Rein's business would have no doubt also drawn a lot of unwanted attention to the business doings of politician's spouses on both sides if she kept it.

Personally I think the biggest tragedy in all this is the missed opportunity for a clear set of guidelines for all of them. On the other hand, if we had some mechanism to really keep them honest we wouldn't have the fun of the occasional scandal.
Posted by chainsmoker, Friday, 1 June 2007 4:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank

I think you overlook the fact the Union funders of the Labor Party actually control the preselections of Labor candidates and therefore the actual Members and their tenure. The members of the Liberal Party fundraisers don't.
Posted by keith, Friday, 1 June 2007 7:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The liberal party members just buy their preselection, like Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Costello and the member for Indi, who represents a rural electorate from Toorak.
Posted by ruawake, Friday, 1 June 2007 7:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ALP practice their own form of political distraction.
Whenever the spotlight is directed to their retrograde IR policy, the ALP resorts to its favorite stalking horse - global warming.
Posted by Admiral von Schneider, Friday, 1 June 2007 8:00:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was hypocracy of the grandest order.Firstly Labor screams murder with the dismantling of the Commwealth employment service,then Kevin Rudd says how evil the entire IR reform is and it must be elimated,all the while his wife gets very rich on tax payers money running an employment service based in the two "evils"that Labor professes to abhorr.

To add insult to the injury of our intelligence,Kevin says his wife is not an appendage,then gets her to sell off a lucrative part of her Aussie business so he can be a pausible Prime Minister.Therese has been left with no illusions about who owns the appendage and who weilds the real power.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 2 June 2007 12:31:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think they are both fools why sell a 150 million dollar business to put up with this sort of sh!t?
Or sell the business and tell em to stick the PM job and put their collective feet up.
The interest on that @ 5% is $7.5 mil
Gee I could just squeeze by on that and a medicare card.
You wonder why you don't decent people in politics
A Who would want to put up with this sh!t.
B Most of you are incapable of recognising a good person if you fell over them and even you would give them a good kick on the way past.
C Its a rare person who would survive without being an @rsehole
D Why go into a job with good intentions then get the living sh!t kicked out of you
Posted by alanpoi, Saturday, 2 June 2007 2:01:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a problem with the Union Movement having so much influence within the ALP; after all the Australian Labor Party was founded by the Union Movement and Conservatives are represented by the well heeled entreprenuerial classes,wannabe capitalists and neo cons
What irks Unionists is the continuing shift to the right by the ALP in order to appease swinging voters and the continuing erosion of Workers Conditions they achieve when in power,i.e. the Accords under Hawke that achieved what the Liberals could not.

The first post by Wre also strikes a (dis) chord when it so happens that an aspiring Prime Minister's spouse benefits from the privatisation of the Commonwealth Employment Service by obtaining contracts from Government; Surely a potential conflict of interest.

The Howard Government's actions during the last term has soured the electorate regardless of his economic management with a flourishing resources boom through his Union bashing IR laws; illegal participation in Iraq war; disgraceful immigration policies; Shameful Foreign Policies with AWB, Free Trade Agreements which impoverish Australian enterprises in his rush to get on the Globalisation wagon, and reprehensible refusal to act for David Hicks.

I will be voting the Howard Government out at the next election and I will be watching Rudd with interest and not a lot of confidence unless he is reined in by his Party.
Posted by maracas, Saturday, 2 June 2007 1:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the issue of underpayment was made public it was also reported that the matter had already been rectified; workers were reimbursed for the wages/salaries lost. If my understanding is true, then it has been a storm in a tea cup and it should be the end of the matter.

Perhaps more focus needs to be on the Liberal Party where a Federal Police Raid has occured on Liberal Party Headquaters in Queensland.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 2 June 2007 7:34:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the grownups argue over the dinner table, about who gets to carry the family credit card. the kids huddle in their bedroom, whispering about their chances for a visit to waterworld.

that's the level of political culture in australian 'democracy'.

meanwhile, the water pipes only deliver a rusty dribble, the price of electricity is skyrocketing, and the 6 o clock news announces that daddy has heard of something called global warming but won't pay it any attention because his knitwear shop would suffer, if it were true.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 4 June 2007 8:21:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank/ Chain Smoker…

It seems to me that you failed to respond to any of the points I made with the exception of the the funding issue.

At the end of the day, the ALP and unions are inextricably linked. The unions expect the ALP to be their mouth piece and they also expect their agendas to be pushed- these agendas have less to do with supporting the working man than maintaining physical control over every construction site, port and mine in the country for the benefit of the union bosses. How anybody can sit back after the recent recordings that have been aired and assert that unions are a ‘good’ thing is beyond me. Furthermore, even if the unions only fund 25% of the ALP, it is still a massive chunk (which doesn’t take into account indirect contributions).

Rudd is a conservative christian wrapped in ALP cloaks. As the union bosses have kept telling us, he is not a grub, thug or picket line enforcer like them. However, the unions are smart enough to know that they need him to win the next election- it is blatantly obvious that once he wins, he will be expected to push the envelope of the unions. In my view, he is not a strong enough leader to be able to withstand that pressure, especially that from his MP’s.
Posted by wre, Monday, 4 June 2007 8:22:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The term 'Union Bosses' is a derogatory term used by anti-union elements in our society who fail to understand Union function and history in Australia.
As a lifelong Unionist,( now retired ) I am proud to have been a part of the Union Movement and as a rank-and-file activist who has participated through the ranks in every aspect of the Movement,including the highest levels of leadership.. I find the definition offensive in it's inference that Unions are controlled by 'bosses'

Bosses are not elected by their employees.

Union Leaders on the other hand are elected by their Membership from the 'shop floor' in court controlled ballots. Union Leaders who do not carry out the decisions of their membership are defeated in elections.

The Union Movement is only as strong as it's membership which explains why Conservative Governments work so hard to render Unions impotent with the introduction of anti-union legislation and their pre-occupation with denying Unions a seat at the negotiations table and the introduction of Work Choices and AWA's.

Most Workers recognise the Rudds do not come from their side of the fence and the political future of the Rudds will be determined by their policies and whether or not they serve Workers interests.
Posted by maracas, Monday, 4 June 2007 11:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a load of nonsense Maraccas.

(a) If unions are so popular on the ‘shop floor’, why is that unions will not allow anonymous ballots? I would contend that it is because union membership is on the decline and the only way to ensure membership is to use thuggish behaviour to deter any dissenters. (for records of such behaviour there are quite a few royal commission reports floating around).
(b) The union movement DID have a proud history and important role in the Australian Workplace. Unfortunately, recent history has only proven unions to be outdated, self serving and completely detrimental to the future of the country.

Grace Collier has written an excellent article in The Australian today (she is an industrial relations expert so don’t go whinging about the paper being biased). Collier has referred to Rudd as the union movement’s trojan horse and pointed out some very interesting facts about where commissions for salary protection insurance actually end up.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21848247-601,00.html
Posted by wre, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 11:59:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy