Australian Politics
Monday, October 09, 2023
Will the independents again save truckies from turmoil?
One of the most feared anti-small business bodies ever conceived in Australia, the infamous so called Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is being brought back to life in the ALP’s proposed new industrial relations legislation.
Around 2016 in its first incarnation the tribunal threatened to ruin 35,000 people, mostly men, who drove their own long-haul trucks.
They had borrowed around $15bn from Australian banks and other financiers to fund their vehicles. Most of the loans were also secured on the family home.
The tribunal set about destroying them including making it necessary to sell the family home to pay bank debts.
Fast forward to 2023 and there are now around 50,000 long-haul truck owners who will owe twice the 2016 amount on their trucks, again secured on family homes.
As I describe below, thanks to the courageous effort of the Senate independents in 2016 the 35,000 truck owners were saved. But not before five took their own lives after being subjected to the tribunal brutality.
Now in 2023, a revamped Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has even wider powers and once again it will take courageous action by the independents in the Senate to protect current truck owners homes and livelihoods plus the total Australian community from the higher transport costs that will be part of the tribunal’s agenda.
My 2016 commentaries and those of Katrina Grace Kelly (she was then called Grace Collier) exposed the appalling acts of the tribunal and, with others, we played a role in having it abolished thus limiting the impacts of its destructive acts which not only would have exploded truck owner bankruptcies (and suicides) but would have boosted Australian transport costs by 30-40 per cent.
We don’t know how a 2023 Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will act but given it is set to have even wider powers and carries the same name as the previous tribunal, its highly likely that we can expect either a repeat of its 2016 actions or different actions that have the same impact.
To understand how the tribunal persecuted truckies in 2016 I need describe the structure of parts of the long-haul road transport industry.
Owner drivers contract for major transport operators but they also work on their own and for a multitude of smaller transport companies. This mixture has given Australia one of the most efficient and safe road transport networks in the world and has helped make our mining and agriculture industries world leaders.
But the Transport Workers Union was unhappy in 2016 (and remains unhappy in 2023) because too many owner drivers are not members of the union.
It was alleged that some owner drivers were taking drugs and driving their vehicles for long periods without a break.
And so, in around 2012 the Gillard government set up the Road Transport Remuneration Tribunal. It took a few years for the administrative structures to be put in place and for the “right” people to be selected to run the system.
Meanwhile new technologies and systems had been developed to make sure people were not driving for too long and were not taking substances.
The 2016 tribunal was totally unnecessary for that function.
Its aim was to gain TWU members and boost the margins of the large trucking operators – it was planning a union-employer anti-competitive cartel.
Rather than embrace technologies, the tribunal decided the best way to “stop” owner drivers from driving too long and taking drugs was to make them charge more for their services.
But no such charging instructions were given to companies using TWU employees enabling the majors, with their TWU employees, to undercut the owner drivers and put them out of business.
Katrina Grace Kelly explained how “farmer Keith” was paying $175 for an owner driver to pick up a few head of cattle.
After April 4, 2016 that owner driver was legally forced to charge $784 to pick up the cattle – more than four times the original “fair” price.
And if owner drivers and non TWU members did not charge $784 they could be prosecuted by the Fair Work ombudsman and be fined up to $54,000.
But if the farmer hired a company using TWU member drivers then that transport operator had no such price restrictions and could charge the old “fair” price of $175 but was more likely to charge twice that level at $350 which was still less than half the tribunal required rate for non TWU owner drivers.
It was absolutely outrageous and was clearly aimed to force the owner drivers out of business or at least make them part of the TWU.
And of course the above 2016 plan was set to be replicated around the nation, meaning skyrocketing transport costs in agriculture, mining and manufacturing throughout most of the land.
Naturally, in 2023 there are lots of assurances and mutterings that such actions will never be repeated by the new version of the tribunal.
But a version, albeit different, will happen again. That’s why the tribunal as been set up.
In 2016 the truckies realised that if thousands of truckies were sent to the wall by the tribunal’s actions, the market for trucks would slump forcing them to sell family homes.
But luck saved them. The Coalition came to power and Malcolm Turnbull was PM.
Urgent legislation passed the Lower House to abolish the tribunal but it required support of the independents in the Senate.
The nation (and the truckies) are indebted to the 2016 independents (alphabetical order): Bob Day, Jacqui Lambie, Glenn Lazarus, David Leyonhjelm, John Madigan, Dio Wang, and Nick Xenophon. They saved many lives and enhanced Australia.
Now it is set to happen all over again.
At this stage very few truckies realise the Albanese government is setting them up for slaughter.
Once again the nation (and the truckies) will depend on a new group independents for help and we need to hope that, like their predecessors, they will not let Australia down.
Jacqui Lambie was part of the 2016 greats so knows what is at stake. The other 2023-24 potential heroes are Ralph Babet, Pauline Hanson, David Pocock, Malcolm Roberts, Lidia Thorpe, and Tammy Tyrell.
They have vastly different views on many issues but as in 2016 independents can be united in the national interest.
************************************************
Victorian Bar divided over constitutional diversity clause
Discord has erupted in the Victorian Bar over proposed constitutional amendments to include a “diversity clause” in its governing document, with dozens of barristers fearing the move would make gender and race quotas inevitable, and members financially liable for employment discrimination claims.
The amendments would make it so the defined purpose of the Bar was no longer to promote the administration of justice, uphold the rule of law and manage the state’s Bar Roll, but also “actively promote and foster a diverse and inclusive membership that reflects the society it serves”.
It would also make it the purpose of the Bar “to promote and support the physical and mental wellbeing of barristers, including by preventing and redressing discrimination on the basis of legally protected attributes and unlawful harassment”.
Lana Collaris, a barrister of 15 years, said the amendments were “underpinned by the political philosophy of victimhood, and the belief that the Bar is a hateful place were discrimination is rife, systemic and incurable”.
“The purposes define why we exist,” she said. “Once you start tinkering with that, that is a big deal. These are not purposes of the Bar. The Bar exists to serve the administration of justice in Victoria and create a body of competent barristers.”
Ms Collaris said the amendments would “ground an argument” for quotas to be embedded in the Reader’s Course – the exam barristers must take to join the Bar.
“Not just the Reader’s Course, but the silk selection process,” she said. “They’re taking everything away from merit.
“Another barrister … said members of society have their liberty at stake. They might have their life savings in a barrister, they should be able to have the best. Barristers should be appointed on merit.
“These kind of amendments can change that.”
The proposition comes weeks after a mock notice was pinned to a lift in Melbourne’s Owen Dixon Chambers advertising the sham “Men in Law Awards” which included categories for “most woke counsel” and “best virtue-signalling counsel”.
At the time, the Women’s Barristers Association panned the notice as an attack on female members, saying “while the Bar has taken great strides towards equality and inclusion, challenges remain”.
In May, the Victorian Bar was divided over whether to support the Indigenous voice to parliament, leading to an all-in vote. Nearly 60 per cent of the barristers agreed to support the voice.
All 2200 Victorian Bar members were last week sent an email announcing an annual general meeting would be held this Wednesday to vote on proposed diversity amendments, which need 75 per cent support to get over the line.
Following that announcement, Ms Collaris sent an email to many Bar members urging them to vote down the proposition, and saying barristers could become financially liable for members’ discrimination claims if the changes were waved through.
Barristers pay a fee to be part of the association, and Ms Collaris fears that money could be used to fight off financial compensation claims that could arise if the new diversity clause is not properly complied with.
“The proposed amendments are divisive and will only serve to divide a Bar that is already inclusive,” she wrote. “The constitution is a contract between the Bar and its members.
“The proposed amendments create a new contractual obligation binding upon the Bar that could be sued upon by any member, with ensuing litigation being funded from the pockets of all members, including those who are completely removed from the circumstances of the litigation.”
Ms Collaris said she received more than 50 positive responses to her email. Bar Council president Sam Hay KC, in his weekly In Brief newsletter circulated to barristers, said the amendments had come from the association’s equality and diversity committee.
He said the Bar Council had made the decision to put the proposed amendments to a vote.
“Whatever your position on the proposed amendment, I urge you to have your say by attending the AGM or completing a proxy form,” he said.
**************************************************
Conservative think tank chief slams claims Australia will be seen as racist in the event of a No vote
Over a week out from voting day, a leader of a right-wing think tank has rejected claims Australia will be seen as a racist nation if the Voice referendum fails.
Tom Switzer, Executive Director of the Centre of Independent Studies, has argued a No vote at the October 14 referendum won’t result in any lasting reputational damage to the country, suggesting Australia will remain a “tolerant” society.
“If the people reject the Voice, it’s a fair bet this nation will remain a tolerant, welcoming liberal democracy and civilised society, where the rule of law applies equally to every citizen,” he said in a video shared to social media.
“Imperfect as we certainly are, Australia is one of the world’s most successful nations … It requires a great deal of something – self-hatred, guilt, sense of inferiority or just fashionable foolishness – not to recognise that fact.”
Mr Switzer also said the world is preoccupied with its own “far more serious problems” to concern itself with Australia’s referendum.
“When we do attract attention abroad, more often than not it is for some natural calamity, a sporting, cultural or entertainment achievement, or for our charms as a holiday destination.”
It comes after Mr Switzer earlier disputed claims by barrister Geoffrey Robertson that “if No wins, the world will see us as racist and ignorant”.
In a piece for the Sydney Morning Heraldlast month, Mr Roberston wrote: “If Australians vote No, we will appear to outside observers as racist, in the sense of denying to an ethnic minority an opportunity for advancement to which they are entitled.”
Rejecting the assertion, Mr Switzer said it was both “desperate” and a “little short of disgraceful” to “vilify decent people as racist and ignorant, clouding the issue in the hope that the nation will vote according to emotion and not reason”.
************************************
Another good reason to vote No: Imams to preach Yes in mosques across Australia
Hundreds of Islamic leaders will tell their communities to vote for the Voice as a way to bring Australia closer to peace and justice, launching the message after calls from other faith groups and ethnic communities to back the change.
The move steps up the Yes campaign in a key community ahead of the final week of early voting, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expected to attend a mosque in western Sydney on Friday to hear the message.
The Australian National Imams Council has agreed on the message and asked all imams and other speakers to dedicate their Friday address, or khutbah, to the call to support the recognition of First Australians and setting up the Voice.
The Voice has formal support from many peak groups, ranging from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to the Anglican Church, the Uniting Church, the Hindu Council and the National Sikh Council of Australia, although there have been tensions over some church stances.
The message to be delivered at mosques on Friday has the support of the Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, as well as the president of the Australian National Imams Council, Sheikh Shadi Alsuleiman.
The latest census found there were more than 800,000 followers of Islam in Australia, about 3 per cent of the population. The imams’ council expects the new message to be preached at 80 per cent or more of the nation’s 250 mosques.
“The Voice will contribute to shaping a positive future for all Australians, and Australian Muslims should be a part of this significant change,” says the message, which is recommended to imams to include in their sermons.
“It is essential to acknowledge that the First Nations people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes, were the first sovereign nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands for thousands of years.”
Linking the issue to the Islamic faith, the sermon says the Prophet Muhammad had a key message for followers about “supporting the weak, helping the oppressed, and spreading peace” and this meant advocating for those who needed and deserved help.
With polls showing majority support for a No vote, the Yes23 campaign has been seeking to mobilise local groups to swing support towards change before ballots are counted on October 14, with faith and ethnic groups seen as key to this outcome.
But Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has also made a direct plea to Australians from migrant backgrounds to vote against the Voice, saying it would divide people by their ancestry and undermine equality for multicultural communities.
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment