Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Argy-bargy sets scene for Rudd IR backflip?

The editorial from "The Australian" below argues that the Labor Party's scrap with unions is really a smokescreen -- to precede an announcement of more responsible workplace policies. One hopes the prophecy is correct

The faux antagonism that now characterises relations between the economically conservative federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and the ideologically opposite trade union leadership continues apace. It has reached the point where the tone of the insults now stands in inverse proportion to the size of the dispute. Most of all, it is doing Mr Rudd no harm at all to be seen calling union leaders names to demonstrate that he is tough enough to keep them in line. NSW Labor Council secretary John Robertson let the cat out of the bag when he told union supporters Mr Rudd should be given his head because he would do what he was told after the election. Mr Robertson reportedly told the faithful that while Labor might do a few more backflips union members should focus their anger and frustration on the Government, not Mr Rudd.

Mr Rudd's response that Mr Robertson had spoken with the swaggering tone of someone who was full of himself and that he should take a cold shower makes good political theatrics. Faced with a sustained Government assault that he is in the pocket of union heavies, what Mr Rudd needs most is to be seen to be muscling up to organised labour. Getting tough with Dean Mighell -- the Electrical Trades Union secretary who was caught on tape justifying standover tactics to force employers to agree to pattern-bargaining pay rises, bragging about assaulting employers during strikes and suggesting workplace inspectors were pedophiles -- was a fair cop. So too was the expulsion of West Australian building union head Joe McDonald, who was filmed swearing at a building site manager.

The way for Mr Rudd to deal with Mr Robertson is not to talk about cold showers but to come clean about how the ALP's industrial relations policy will work if the party wins office. Mr Rudd's real weakness is in not being clear about what he intends to do. With the Government about to force employers to give the nation's 10 million workers a leaflet outlining their rights under the newly enacted safety net for lower paid workers, Labor must demonstrate it has a better alternative that will not risk the economy.

Mr Rudd says Labor will continue talks with the mining industry but appears to have recommitted Labor to abolishing all Australian Workplace Agreements. This is on the basis that 50 per cent of employees within the mining industry are on common law agreements, 30 per cent on collective agreements and 16 per cent on AWAs. Mr Rudd says Labor will deliver an IR system that provides flexibility for the mining industry in both common law and collective agreements.

The Australian accepts that collective agreements may be a beneficial safety net for low-paid workers. But while we accept that collective bargaining should be a right for those who seek it, we fail to see the need for intrusion into the lives of those who do not, or of highly paid workers who would prefer an individual non-union agreement, whatever it may be called. This applies to all industries, not just mining. To us, the Government's no-disadvantage test for workers earning less than $75,000 a year appears to be a reasonable compromise. Perhaps Labor could set a level, at say twice average weekly earnings, above which workers could opt to be on AWAs.

The bottom line is that behind the argy-bargy, Mr Robertson is clearly setting his union colleagues up to accept that Labor will soon be moving to a more sensible position on industrial relations. Mr Rudd still has a job to do to convince voters that he can be trusted to keep union demands for another backflip at bay should he win the keys to the Lodge.


New test detects DNA damage

This test appears to be well-validated but would appear to detect gross problems only. The claims about the healing powers of vitamins should be taken with a large grain of salt

A TEST for DNA damage that claims to counter diseases such as cancer, by helping people identify when they are not getting enough essential nutrients in their diet, was made available to the public yesterday. The test, which has been developed by the CSIRO, costs $650. However, independent experts caution it should not be seen as a complete summary of health risks, nor a reliable way of telling whether someone will develop cancer in later life. Federal Ageing Minister Christopher Pyne launched the test, which is available through a private Adelaide-based clinic called Reach 100.

The test, which is endorsed by organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency to check for DNA damage caused by radiation, looks for damage in white blood cells. DNA damage occurs naturally with ageing as cells make mistakes in copying the genetic code as they divide. This tendency to make mistakes was likened by test inventor and CSIRO principal scientist Michael Fenech to "a photocopier running out of toner". Dr Fenech said the damage could be limited - and to some extent, reversed - if individuals ensured they had an adequate intake of nine nutrients known to affect DNA damage.

The nutrients are: the B-group vitamins riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pantothenate (B5), biotin (B7), folate (B9) and cobalamin (B12); two forms of vitamin A, retinol and beta-carotene; and vitamin E.

John Barlow, deputy director of the National Ageing Research Institute, cautioned that although the test had been widely validated, the DNA damage detected by the test was large-scale. "This test won't find a mutation in the BRCA gene, which has been known to cause some breast cancers, and it won't find a mutation in the p53 gene ... involved in cell death, and causes cell growth and cancer."


Yeasty discovery

AN essential ingredient in two Aussie favourites - Vegemite and beer - could hold the key to unlocking a cure for cancer. Scientists have found the yeast cell is similar to the human cell, pioneering the way for cancer treatments, according to Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Sir Paul Nurse. "The way in which you control cell division in yeast is exactly the same way in which you control it in humans," Sir Paul said. "This means that we can now use yeast to study the processes that go wrong in cancer."

In Melbourne for the 23rd International Conference on Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology, Sir Paul said yeast could also help in finding remedies for other human diseases such as diabetes. "Because we can work much more efficiently with yeast we can make tremendous progress," he said.

Sir Paul shared the 2001 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine with two other scientists for his work in identifying and isolating the cyclin dependent kinase gene, known as CDC2, crucial in cell division in yeast and humans. The discovery has helped lessen the need for experiments on humans and animals, and has enabled investigations to be conducted much faster, Sir Paul said. Sir Paul will speak at a free lecture on Friday at the Lower Melbourne Town Hall, from 12.30-2pm.


Is there anything that is NOT caused by global warming?

Just a few months ago, the "drought" in Southern Australia (and in England) was being blamed on global warming. Now that there is extensive flooding (again both in England and Southern Australia) it's floods that are being caused by global warming. Consistency and logic are clearly not Greenie virtues. The Australian nonsense below comes from the Leftist Premier of the State of Victoria

VICTORIA faces more bushfires and increasingly severe floods in the future because of climate change, Premier Steve Bracks says. As residents in Gippsland, in the state's south-east, mop up after devastating floods this week, Mr Bracks said today that evidence from climate change experts showed that extreme weather would become the norm.

"The evidence, which has been given to our government by the CSIRO, shows that we will have more bushfire events per year as every year goes on,'' Mr Bracks told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "That's more days over 35 degrees celsius with strong northerly winds, and that's because of the climate heating up and climate change effects,'' he said.

"The same with floods. We probably won't have more floods, but the severity of those when they occur will be greater. "And that is the product of climate change. "We have to prepare for that.''

Insurance assessors are still determining the financial extent of damage wrought by the floods while the cost to the Victorian government to repair civic infrastructure alone could top $40 million. The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) expects to come up with a total damage bill in the next few days.

"The reality is that this is as big a flood that we have ever had in that region, certainly as big as 1998,'' [Only as big as 1998! Surely we can do better than that!] Mr Bracks said. "We've already had some 200 householders who've submitted to the government for relief, we expect that to go even further.''


Speech in Jerusalem to Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce

By Alexander Downer, Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs

Minister Ezra, Professor Stanley Fischer, Gurion Meltzer, Moshe Kaveh, the President of Bar Ilan University and other distinguished guests here tonight. I can only say that tonight is a very important evening for me and I feel very touched by the great honour that's been bestowed on me by Bar Ilan University. I feel that it's exciting on the one hand but I feel very humbled by it as well - perhaps a little undeserving. I did get an honours degree at university but my wife says to me that "Darling, you're now a doctor but you've not done a stroke of work towards a thesis". When I graduated as an undergraduate I thought that was enough university and it was time to go out and make money and I failed at that and went into politics [laughter]. Anyway, I've come full circle and now I'm a doctor and so I appreciate the great honour.

A lot of people ask me why I seem to be so committed to Israel - I mean, I'm a Christian, not Jewish and although I remember staying here in this hotel about three years ago ... and I think I could almost be described as an honorary Jew with a lot of the views that I hold about the issues that Jewish people confront. But a lot of people do ask me why I am so committed to Israel. And I think there are a variety of explanations for that. One of them is a bit historic and I think some of you have heard me say this before. When I was a child at school and subsequently when I went to university in England, for no particular reason, Jewish people seemed to befriend me as some other people did as well [laughter], but I seemed to have quite a lot of Jewish friends.

When I was at university I shared a house with four people. One of them was a New Zealander, one of them was Jewish - her name is Judy - and a Scotsman. This was in 1972-73, that sort of time, the significance being 1973. And Judy had a cousin come and stay with her from Israel. And it was at the time, just as the cousin came, the Yom Kippur War broke out. And I remember this just as though it were yesterday, going down into our little kitchenette - imagine a student's kitchen how completely disgusting it was, with washing up not done for about four days, just a complete mess really, and we ate such disgusting food as well. Judy's sitting there in her dressing gown with her cousin from Israel and the cousin from Israel had tears in her eyes. They were both listening to BBC radio, to the details of the Yom Kippur War and you'll remember better than I do how in the early days it wasn't going so well. This cousin of Judy's brother was in the Israeli army and - you know all of this so much better than I do.

But I was tremendously struck by the power of the moment. I was tremendously struck by the Jewish people, as in the Israelis in this case, under siege and so unreasonably in my view - now some people will criticise me for that - but I think completely unreasonably under siege in the way that they were and suffering so much yet again after all the wars that they'd been through. And, I don't know, it seemed to me that somebody had sometimes to stick up for the Israeli people and as the years have gone by the cause of Israel has, in many countries around the world, become decreasingly fashionable. I don't think there's any doubt about that. It hasn't changed my mind that it's become decreasingly fashionable, in fact I've never claimed to be fashionable, I've just tried to do what I thought was the right thing.

So for those sort of historic reasons, I've had a strong feeling for Israel. One of the other reasons I have a strong feeling for Israel - when I come here and it's forty degrees it reminds me of Adelaide, it's like going home. When I come here and look at Israeli politics it also reminds me of home. The interesting way that Israelis conduct their politcs, the same robust - dare I say it - slightly rude way in which your politicians deal with each other, the volatility of your politics - a bit more volatile than ours. Yes, you've had more Foreign Ministers, as Stanley was pointing out, than we have over the last eleven years, but nevertheless the volatility, the confrontation, the partisanship of your politics is very familiar to us.

Of course in a broader sense Israel shares so many of the core values that Australia has as well. Australia is the world's sixth oldest continuingly operating democracy; its democratic roots are very deep. Israel is such a vibrant democracy as well, it's one of the great heartlands of modern democracy as well - the passionate belief in the freedom of the individual that we have in our own society. There's something else about Israel that Australia shares as well and that is that your country seems to me to be a kind of brutally egalitarian society and we kind of like that in Australia. Airs and graces don't go down very well in our country - that's why Europeans think that we're very noisy and perhaps a touch common [laughter]. But it's just that we're very egalitarian. And I think that Israelis suffer from - if you could call it that - the same thing. So there are those great sort of bonds of kinship, I guess, that we have.

We have in Australia a wonderful Jewish community about 100,000 strong. They are just enormous contributors to our country. Our country would not be the great country it is if not for our small but incredibly successful Jewish community in the professions, in business, not so much in politics in our country but there have been from time to time in politics - the first Australian-born Governor General of Australia was Jewish and we've had two Governors General - I think, two - who have been Jewish. Jewish people have been an enormously important part of our society - continue to be - and we're very proud of that as well.

But I suppose on top of all of those things, in very recent years we have kind of been bound together yet again because of the way the world has evolved. I suppose for Jewish people one of the most defining experiences is what happened to them in the 1930s and 1940s. So for Jewish people they understand more than anyone else on earth the pain of the confrontation between liberal democrats, social democrats on the one side and fascism and Nazism on the other side and totalitarianism. After that we had the confrontation between liberal and social democrats and Communism. And I think when we got to 1990-91, the Berlin wall was torn down, Communism collapsed, it became a barren and bankrupt ideology. The Soviet Union itself broke up, we thought it was, to use Francis Fukuyama's phrase, the end of world history, meaning that the great ideological confrontations had finished. We thought that we could pocket a 'peace dividend' as they used to say in the early 1990s, we could put away our arms and spend that money on the things we'd truly love to spend it on - health and education, services and so on.

But then we were very brutally reminded, as time went on, that in fact the great conflicts were not over. That the world still faces a great conflict, which I often define as a conflict between moderate people, between tolerant people, between caring people on the one hand and between extremists, and the intolerant and the uncaring on the other hand. And the intolerance of a minority is an intolerance that causes great death and great suffering.

Now I ask myself what should we do about those who are intolerant, those who have ideologies which they wish to impose on others, and those who are prepared to cause suffering to others for the cause of an ideology because the ideology is more important than human life or it's more important than any individual, that in fact individuals don't count, the corporate ideology is what counts? And this is what we see from the Islamic extremists from, in our part of the world, in south east Asia, from Jemaah Islamiyah, the Abu Sayyaf group, you see from Al Qaeda, and you see to some extent from both Hamas and Hizbollah right around you here in Israel.

Some people said that the best way to deal with Nazism was through a policy that was very fashionable and very popular in the 1940s called appeasement. And we all know in this room that that policy was the wrong policy. And yet it's so often repeated, despite the fact that we know it's the wrong way to deal with extremists we're still inclined to want to repeat it. So when it came to the Soviet Union and the spread of Communism and the challenges that laid down some people thought, "Well that's the way the world is, we just have to find ways of accommodating it".

A lot of you won't agree with me here, because you can see I don't mind always whether people agree or not, but I reckon one of the great speeches of the 20th century, or at least the second half of the 20th century, was Ronald Reagan's speech in 1987 in Berlin where he said, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall". The importance of that speech was that it was a speech where Reagan was saying, "I want to confront this type of regime, I want to confront this totalitarianism, and I want to defeat it". And he and his successors and a number of other people - there were a lot of people involved in that victory, but they did.

When it's come to Islamic extremism and terrorism, there are still people who think we shouldn't confront it, and we shouldn't try to defeat it, and we should try to negotiate our way out of it. I'm often reminded of the phrase that Osama bin Laden uses - you want to watch these people's videos - just as it was important to read Mein Kampf, so it is important to look at and take seriously what people like Osama bin Laden say. And he says the West is a weak horse. That if you keep confronting the weak horse for long enough eventually it will walk away, that it won't be able to sustain for a long time a campaign against extremism and terrorism. And when I think about the debates that there are - the debates there are about what to do with Hamas or with Hizbollah and Al Qaeda - what should we be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan - should we let the Taliban take over and just go back home, go back to bed and have a cry at night.

Or, in our case, should we and the Americans and the British and others just walk out of Iraq and leave people like Al Qaeda and other extremists to play merry havoc in that country. Imagine what that would mean for you nearby, here in Israel. And people say that's the easy way, that's the way we should do it. I keep thinking to myself, "It would be quite easy", and sometimes I think it might give us a bit of a boost in the polls if we were to do that sort of thing at home. And then I think, "What will it mean for my children? What will it mean for future generations? What will it mean for you here in this country?" if in the end we show weakness, if we are weak horses, if we run away. Will that mean these people themselves will disappear, will their ideology vanish? Will they become our friends as a result of us being weak horses? I think the answer to that is perfectly obvious. And therefore when we think about confronting this great challenge that we have today, that you have of course right here in the forefront of it, and that we have to some lesser extent in south east Asia.

When we think about it we need to work with people who are like-minded, and we need to show a sturdy courage in continuing to confront it. And I don't just mean a physical courage, and it certainly requires on the part of many people that above all and, I'm sorry to say, very often very sad sacrifice. But also for politicians, a lot of political courage as well to continue to make their arguments in their own countries. And some have done that and you know I've admired those people who have been prepared to do that in their countries, sometimes in the teeth of public opposition.

So I say all those things here in Israel on this wonderful evening here tonight, I think our countries have joined together in that great struggle that we have. And what I want to see is an Israel that can live in peace, of course, in peace with its neighbours with two states there, with the State of Israel entirely secure. You don't want to have to spend ten per cent of your GDP, as we were discussing, on defence, but much less, and with a Palestinian state too which is a secure and a prosperous place and a prosperous neighbour and a good neighbour for Israel. And we want to see a world where people are able to live in freedom and democracy and I think Australia and Israel and a number of other countries know that can't be achieved for free - we do have to show strength if we are going to achieve those things. And you know those of us who believe in those things - let's try to stick together, let's not argue too much and fall out with each other.

So, it's always an enormous pleasure for me for all of those reasons and I've talked about them at great length to be in Israel and to be here in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a spectacular city. I always say to people there are about 10 cities you have to see before you die and one of those cities is Jerusalem. It's a wonderful city, a controversial city, a very divided city, but a magnificent city. I think Sydney actually - although a lot of people here come from Melbourne - [laughter] don't worry, I'm from Adelaide, the city with the greatest football team [laughter] - but I think, just to look at, Sydney is one of the 10 cities you have to see. So those of you who are Israelis who have never been to Sydney you must make sure you at least go there and perhaps go to Adelaide as well [laughter]. It has quite a small Jewish community, Adelaide, but a very good one.

So I'd like to, if you'll just let me, say once more what an enormous honour it is to be here this evening. It's a wonderful feeling to receive from Bar Ilan University the honorary doctorate, I appreciate that enormously, and I look forward to coming back before too long, after our election - confidently, in the same position I've got here today [applause]. The one thing that I definitely want on the record, Professor Kaveh, is that I would like to make a commitment to going to Bar Ilan University and giving a lecture there about some of the things that I believe in. So, thank you very much.


No comments: