tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/awu-3397/articlesAWU – The Conversation2017-10-26T10:50:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/864162017-10-26T10:50:50Z2017-10-26T10:50:50ZGrattan on Friday: Cash takes a hit in the government’s pursuit of Shorten<p>In his opening statement to a Senate estimates committee on Wednesday night, Mark Bielecki, the head of the Registered Organisations Commission, which is investigating the Australian Workers Union’s A$100,000 donation to GetUp, declared he wanted to correct a “misapprehension”.</p>
<p>“This investigation is not into Mr Shorten. It is into the AWU and it is into the AWU’s processes for approving donations, including political donations,” Bielecki said.</p>
<p>Whatever the Registered Organisations Commission might think or say, there’s been no doubt in the minds of the government what the inquiry is about. When Employment Minister Michaelia Cash referred the donation to the commission in August, she and her colleagues knew it was all about Bill Shorten.</p>
<p>The 2005 donation was made when Shorten, a founding director of GetUp, was AWU secretary.</p>
<p>Once again the government was trying to put Shorten in the frame over his behaviour in his union days. Previous attempts have fallen short of hopes.</p>
<p>It would always be a toss-up whether the Registered Organisations Commission investigation would yield dust or a trace of political gold. But no-one could have predicted it would blow up spectacularly in the face of the minister who sent the reference to the newly created watchdog.</p>
<p>Cash is still in place but it was excruciating to watch her performance when, as chance had it, she was appearing in Senate estimates this week and had to face forensic grilling – laced with sarcastic comments – from Labor senators.</p>
<p>The events are now well-known. The media were tipped off so the cameras could be present for Monday’s police raids on the AWU offices.</p>
<p>In front of the Senate committee, Cash denied through Wednesday that her office had anything to do with alerting the media. But around 6PM <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/afp-raids?utm_term=.ts52rWGKQ#.irLEO3BG2">BuzzFeed reported</a> journalists had said Cash’s office was responsible for the tip-off. When the committee resumed after the dinner break, Cash announced her senior media adviser had just fessed up and resigned.</p>
<p>It seemed extraordinary that Cash could have been left in ignorance all day. Even more odd was that she (and the staffer in question, David De Garis) attended Malcolm Turnbull’s pre-Question Time briefing on Wednesday, when she assured him she had not given the tip-off, but neither he nor others present asked the obvious question: “what about your office?”</p>
<p>When media are being alerted, it is rarely by a call from the minister – it’s done by the media adviser. Everyone at the briefing would have known that. Assuming we’re hearing the truth, failing to ask was sloppy at best.</p>
<p>Not that the answer would necessarily have elicited the facts – because Cash says she’d already inquired of her staff and at that stage no-one admitted putting out the word.</p>
<p>Until recently Cash was receiving good reviews, as a hard worker, an effective negotiator on legislation, and skilled at carrying a brief.</p>
<p>But even before this week, her reputation had started to tarnish, when the head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), Nigel Hadgkiss, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/abcc-chief-nigel-hadgkiss-resigns/news-story/45621f514f95d59e9a5e0f0b2af36f8f">had to resign</a> after admitting to breaching the Fair Work Act while in his previous position. Cash was aware of the civil proceedings against him when he took over the ABCC.</p>
<p>The GetUp affair revolves around whether the donation went through the proper process under the AWU rules – as distinct from being generally known about and accepted by the union hierarchy at the time.</p>
<p>The government – which, incidentally, is on a jihad against GetUp, a campaigning body far too effective for its liking – would point out it is important to ensure unions are accountable and transparent when giving away members’ money. No-one could reasonably disagree with such a proposition.</p>
<p>But the government’s obvious attempt to use the recently established Registered Organisations Commission for political purposes is an abuse of power – and potentially damaging to the fledgling organisation. </p>
<p>Cash points out that she can’t direct the Registered Organisations Commission but when the minister refers something to it, that will obviously be taken up. And, as has been widely asked, would this matter, more than a decade old, have been referred if it hadn’t involved Shorten?</p>
<p>De Garis’ action in tipping off the media also shows the political prism through which the government sees these issues. Turnbull on Thursday described what De Garis did as “wrong” and “improper”. But if the affair had not backfired on the government, would it have been unhappy with the TV pictures of the raid?</p>
<p>Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/police-raids-show-liberals-using-state-power-against-labor/news-story/1eb102e0477d86186375771da7585948">wrote this week</a> that the raids “seem part of a disturbing pattern of the Liberals using state power to persecute a political enemy”.</p>
<p>Bolt is a perennial critic of Turnbull but in this case he highlighted what had happened from the start of the Coalition government, referring to “the Liberals’ astonishing record of dragging Labor leaders before commissions and royal commissions created – at least in part – to humiliate them”.</p>
<p>In parliament on Thursday Turnbull kept firing at Shorten, mustering what chutzpah he could. But the bullets looked rubbery, after those days in which one of the more competent ministers was winged and the new Registered Organisations Commission found itself in rather too much spotlight. To say nothing of the fact that Shorten once again remained one step ahead of his pursuers.</p>
<p><strong><em>POSTSCRIPT</em></strong></p>
<p>There has been some debate among journalists about whether BuzzFeed should have reported that the media tip-off came from Cash’s office.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, my view is that it’s fine to report what happened if you didn’t get the tip-off – rather like Laurie Oakes reporting what Turnbull said at the press gallery ball that Oakes didn’t attend.
It’s not OK to reveal your source if you get a tip-off and it’s on a confidential basis.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86416/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government’s obvious attempt to use the recently established Registered Organisations Commission for political purposes is an abuse of power.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/503702015-11-08T10:51:08Z2015-11-08T10:51:08ZBill Shorten needs to demonstrate independence from the unions<p>Bill Shorten can heave a sigh of relief at the statement from the royal commission into union corruption that he didn’t do anything illegal in the activities it examined in his Australian Workers’ Union past.</p>
<p>If Jeremy Stoljar, SC, counsel assisting the commission, had recommended in his Friday submissions that the commission find Shorten might have breached the law, that surely would have killed his leadership.</p>
<p>Shorten has dodged a bullet, while Stoljar has said his union successor Cesar Melhem, now a Victorian state Labor politician, and construction company Thiess John Holland may have committed offences in the company’s payments to the union during the construction of the Melbourne EastLink project. Discussions on the matter started in Shorten’s time.</p>
<p>Not that the commission is necessarily all done on the subject of Shorten – commissioner Dyson Heydon’s report comes at the end of the year.</p>
<p>But assuming there is nothing seriously adverse for him there, Shorten’s allegiances with and obligations to the unions still present him with credibility problems as alternative prime minister.</p>
<p>The details of union corruption and thuggery that have come out at the commission are appalling. It is true, as Shorten and Labor keep saying, that the commission was set up as a political exercise with him as one of its targets. But that does not alter the fact that it has exposed shocking conduct.</p>
<p>Some of the worst behaviour has involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). </p>
<p>Surely that union should be disaffiliated by the ALP, or at least have its affiliation suspended until there is clear evidence the situation has been rectified.</p>
<p>But the CFMEU forms part of Shorten’s power base. It was vital at this year’s ALP national conference in helping him with the numbers on key issues, most notably the policy that allows a future Labor government to turn back asylum seeker boats.</p>
<p>The CFMEU’s influence was one factor in the very strong stand Labor took on the China-Australia free trade agreement.</p>
<p>And Shorten’s workplace relations spokesman, Brendan O'Connor, is the brother of Michael O'Connor, who is national secretary of the union.</p>
<p>In a September profile of Michael O'Connor, Ewin Hannan wrote in the <a href="http://www.afr.com/brand/afr-magazine/meet-cfmeu-boss-michael-oconnor-with-high-octane-enemies-unlikely-friends-20150816-gj0go5">Australian Financial Review</a> that he “wields significant influence in both the union movement and the Labor Party. … [T]hrough O’Connor’s relationships in the ALP and with not only other unions but also the Senate crossbenchers and the Greens, he has been effective at stymying change that his members don’t agree with and driving home policies they support”.</p>
<p>Hannan also noted that colleagues said “the brothers are mindful of the obvious conflict of interest but watch each other’s backs as they negotiate their way through the often treacherous world of labour movement politics, and the competing interests of the party’s political and industrial wings”.</p>
<p>That’s just the point. Labor’s workplace spokesman and the head of a powerful union that includes a disreputable construction section should not be watching each other’s backs.</p>
<p>Asked about the relationship, Brendan O'Connor said in a statement to The Conversation on Sunday: “As shadow minister I’m well aware of avoiding potential conflicts of interest and I act accordingly”.</p>
<p>One piece of legislation that the O'Connors have helped stop is the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Yet surely in the circumstances there is a strong case for this to be brought back. </p>
<p>The ALP and Senate crossbenchers have also defeated the Coalition bill on registered organisations.</p>
<p>Brendan O'Connor said recently this bill would place “higher penalties and a more onerous regime on officers of employer bodies and unions than those imposed on company directors”.</p>
<p>He said the Labor government in 2012 had toughened the laws covering these organisations. “As a result, the regulation of trade unions in Australia has never been stronger, accountability has never been higher, and the power of the FWC [Fair Work Commission] to investigate and prosecute for breaches has never been broader.”</p>
<p>The public and members of unions, however, may well not be reassured that sufficient has been done.</p>
<p>Shorten was, reasonably enough, unhappy that the royal commission released its finding about him after 8PM on Friday, and without giving prior notice. His lawyer has written to ask why his message asking about timing wasn’t returned.</p>
<p>The commission was at fault and it handed Shorten a political point.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t alter the problem he has, and should address, of apparently being too beholden to his union base.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/426wt-59f829?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/426wt-59f829?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50370/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Bill Shorten can heave a sigh of relief at the statement from the royal commission into union corruption that he didn’t do anything illegal in the activities it examined in his Australian Workers’ Union…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/445132015-07-10T01:56:34Z2015-07-10T01:56:34ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Bill Shorten<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fu71zF3yVSo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Acting Vice-Chancellor Nicholas Klomp and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including Labor leader Bill Shorten’s appearance at the trade union royal commission and what it will mean for his future, uncertainty over Malcolm Turnbull’s appearance on Q&A and the federal government’s approval for a controversial Chinese coal mine in Barnaby Joyce’s electorate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Acting Vice-Chancellor Nicholas Klomp and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/444692015-07-09T20:07:15Z2015-07-09T20:07:15ZGrattan on Friday: Abbott’s lucky to have a damaged Shorten<p>Bill Shorten’s appearance at the royal commission into union corruption has not only damaged him but diverted a good deal of attention from the signs of serious division and tension at senior levels of the Abbott government.</p>
<p>To go to the latter first: the week saw Agriculture Minister and Nationals deputy leader Barnaby Joyce explode with anger after a Chinese coal-mining project in his New England electorate was approved; Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull none-too-subtly call out Tony Abbott’s hyperbole on Islamic State; and both Turnbull and Joyce furious about Abbott’s ban on ministers appearing on Q&A (which some hope might be lifted now the ABC has released tough terms of reference for the inquiry into the program).</p>
<p>The decision on the Shenhua mine rested with Environment Minister Greg Hunt, not the cabinet, which may have given Joyce the feeling of greater licence to denounce it. Even so, his language was distinctly un-ministerial. “I think it is ridiculous that you would have a major mine in the midst of Australia’s best agricultural land,” he said on Facebook. </p>
<p>Joyce’s office maintains his failure to make an expected joint appearance with Abbott in Grafton was a genuine scheduling problem – given his mood, it might have been a good thing he wasn’t there.</p>
<p>To add to Joyce’s angst, former independent member for New England Tony Windsor is making noises about possibly recontesting the seat. Even the threat is enough to raise Joyce’s blood pressure dangerously.</p>
<p>Joyce seethes publicly; Turnbull brings more calculation. Joyce confronts; Turnbull provokes. Tuesday’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-overestimate-islamic-state-threat-turnbull-44385">speech</a> to the Sydney Institute was a repudiation of how Abbott has handled much of the national security debate – never mind that Turnbull insisted they were on the same page. </p>
<p>Don’t overestimate the IS threat was one Turnbull message, when Abbott says it’s coming for everyone. Remember that people equally committed to defeating terrorism can differ about appropriate measures, Turnbull said, when Abbott casts any disagreement as laying out the red carpet for terrorists. And there was a lot more.</p>
<p>Discontents are rife in the higher reaches of the government, but it is Shorten, not Abbott, who is currently under immense pressure.</p>
<p>Shorten emerged from two days at the royal commission with wounds that are not mortal for his leadership but serious enough to set it back particularly when, despite Labor being in front in the polls, he has not been doing well personally. The revelation he failed to declare that a company which had an enterprise bargaining agreement with his Australian Workers Union (AWU) had financed his campaign director for the 2007 election looked bad.</p>
<p>It’s true that many politicians make mistakes and have to update declarations. But in this case it appears worse because the man was employed by the company, and then by the union, so making the situation less transparent; the EBA relationship could be seen as a conflict of interest; and Shorten made the disclosure only in the last few days. This timing left him open to the claim that he acted when he knew the matter would become an issue at the commission.</p>
<p>The commission heard a lot about the AWU receiving side payments from companies with which it had EBAs. The general accusation was that workers got less than they should because of the cosy relationships between employers and the AWU, which yielded payoffs and more members for the union. Shorten rejected conflict-of-interest allegations, maintaining he and the union did their best for the workers, though sometimes circumstances limited what could be done.</p>
<p>Especially damaging was commissioner Dyson Heydon telling off Shorten for his style of answers. While Heydon framed his criticism in terms of the witness’s own interests and as “a prima facie view”, he was accusing Shorten of being political and talking around questions.</p>
<p>“A lot of your answers are non-responsive,” Heydon said. “You, if I can be frank about it, have been criticised in the newspapers in the last few weeks and I think it is generally believed that you have come here in the hope you will be able to rebut that criticism or a lot of it. I’m not very troubled about that, though I can understand that you are, and it’s legitimate for you to use this occasion to achieve your ends in that regard. What I’m concerned about more is your credibility as a witness.</p>
<p>"A witness who answers each question ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘I don’t remember’ or clarifies the question and so on gives the cross-examiner very little material to work with. It’s in your interest to curb these to some extent extraneous answers.”</p>
<p>It is being widely speculated that these comments suggest Shorten’s performance as a witness will attract negative comment in the commission’s report, quite apart from whatever is found on questions of substance.</p>
<p>Asked later about Heydon’s casting doubt on his credibility, Shorten said pointedly: “He has a job to do, I get that, it’s Tony Abbott’s royal commission.”</p>
<p>Shorten was reinforcing Labor’s fundamental argument about the commission – that it is Abbott’s expensive witch-hunt against him. In attempting to tend the wounds he is left with, Shorten and Labor will dwell on the obviously political nature of the inquiry.</p>
<p>But that won’t stop a critical report, if that’s what comes at the end of the year, inflicting more harm as the election nears.</p>
<p>What’s out there from the evidence provides a lot of grist for the media and Labor’s opponents. But there is not any instance of illegality, and various company cases are confusing, able to be argued different ways. That may both help and harm Shorten – some people will give him the benefit of the doubt, others will take the “smoke must mean fire” position.</p>
<p>One-time ALP national secretary Bob Hogg has <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-veteran-calls-on-shorten-to-quit-over-conflict-of-interest-44461">called on Shorten</a> to resign, asking on Facebook: “Is the concept of conflict of interest beyond your understanding?”</p>
<p>Quite a few in the caucus will be feeling a high degree of frustration that the Abbott government is very vulnerable while Labor has relatively ineffective firepower. But Shorten is protected by the party’s rules, the lack of an alternative and the searing that leadership instability previously inflicted.</p>
<p>In the immediate aftermath of this week’s injury, a test of Shorten’s resilience will be whether he can get the focus onto the government’s weak spots. Then he has to manage the ALP national conference at the end of the month. He can’t afford that to turn bad.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-podcast-tim-soutphommasane-on-team-australia-and-racism-44365">Listen to the latest Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast with guest, Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane, here or on iTunes.</a></strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/bs9dp-572d2a" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Bill Shorten’s appearance at the royal commission has not only damaged him but diverted a good deal of attention from the signs of division and tension at senior levels of the Abbott government.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/431152015-06-11T20:00:46Z2015-06-11T20:00:46ZGrattan on Friday: Tough terrain ahead for Bill Shorten<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/84656/original/image-20150611-15197-1lqma2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Shorten has questions to answer over his time as the head of the AWU, according to Tony Abbott.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The government has always seen Bill Shorten’s union past as a prime target, and now it is starting to take serious aim.</p>
<p>A main motive in Tony Abbott’s setting up the <a href="http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">royal commission into trade union corruption</a> was political – to find ammunition to deploy against Labor and its leader.</p>
<p>This week the commission claimed a political scalp, when Victorian Labor MP Cesar Melhem <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cesar-melhem-steps-down-as-party-whip-20150609-ghjitl.html">stood down</a> as government whip in the state upper house. This followed an allegation that as Australian Workers Union Victorian secretary, Melham had done down workers in a wage deal in exchange for money being paid to the union.</p>
<p>Shorten is close to Melhem and preceded him as Victorian AWU secretary.</p>
<p>The government has seized on information from the inquiry that in 2005 – Shorten’s time – the union invoiced Winslow Constructors for more than A$38,000 to cover dues for 105 AWU members.</p>
<p>Declaring Shorten had questions to answer, Abbott said there had been “pretty startling revelations” at the commission about the AWU “which Mr Shorten used to head up”.</p>
<p>“What has been happening in that union is that companies have been dudding their workers as part of a sweetheart deal … The union has been padding its membership, it has been boosting its power at Labor Party conferences at the expense of workers.</p>
<p>"I think this is pretty scandalous. We have got one Labor member of parliament in Victoria who has had to stand down from his position and he was Bill Shorten’s successor.”</p>
<p>Shorten, whose Thursday news conference was dominated by the issue, said he had “zero tolerance” for any form of corruption, and that an EBA concluded under him with Winslow had brought pay rises (4% rise in each of two years, the latter in two lots of 2%).</p>
<p>Asked whether there was a conflict of interest in having employers pay union dues, Shorten said that “if employers and employees work out matters that is up to them”.</p>
<p>“What I do know is that in Tony Abbott’s royal commission into trade unions I always expected there’d be some political smear and unfairness.”</p>
<p>Only time will tell whether the commission will throw up major problems for Shorten personally – and whether he will end up appearing before it.</p>
<p>But given his union roots, the commission’s general revelations of bad behaviour in sections of the movement – already seen in its first report – will add to what appear to be Shorten’s increasing problems.</p>
<p>These problems mean Shorten could go into election year poorly placed, even though the government will likely continue to struggle with its own ineptness – on show this week with Joe Hockey’s comments on housing affordability – and with a still slow economy.</p>
<p>The Coalition has taken a beating over the cabinet leak from its citizenship debate, but probably more important is this week’s Essential poll finding that 81% approve of its decision to remove citizenship of dual nationals engaged in terrorism or supporting terror groups.</p>
<p>Abbott is banging the security drum ferociously, playing the fear card. In a remarkable sentence, he told the regional summit Australia is hosting on violent extremism that “Daesh is coming, if it can, for every person and for every government with a simple message: submit or die”.</p>
<p>Abbott is likely to step up efforts to attempt to wedge Shorten on national security, while Shorten will battle to stay closely bipartisan, a task which can only get more difficult.</p>
<p>In the polls Labor remains ahead on a two-party basis but its earlier advantage has weakened. Shorten personally has been going backwards vis-a-vis Abbott. Essential <a href="essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport">showed</a> Abbott widening the gap as better prime minister from 35-32% in May to 38-33%, his best result since October. As part of the modern continuous election campaign, Shorten is in the media daily. But even many Labor people worry he is lacking connection and cut-through.</p>
<p>The months ahead are full of challenges for Shorten. He has to navigate the July ALP national conference, where the most testing issue may be not whether Labor should “bind” MPs on same-sex marriage, but whether the party gives room for a Labor government to turn back boats. If it doesn’t, that could be disastrous for Shorten.</p>
<p>Shorten also needs to show more progress on his commitment to make this the ALP’s “year of ideas”. But Labor has already found, for example on superannuation, that while it is under pressure to produce initiatives, doing so can make it the issue.</p>
<p>The opposition must develop both hip-pocket policies that attract people (and this when there’s no money around, so requiring substantial and potentially controversial savings) and some loftier ones to inspire. Addressing a dinner on Thursday, Shorten talked up the republican cause. But worthy as this might be, it doesn’t seem something to grab the general public right now.</p>
<p>Immediately ahead, another aspect of his past looms awkwardly for Shorten, in episodes two and three of the ABC’s The Killing Season.</p>
<p>This week’s first instalment was notable for the on-camera detestation between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. The next episode is said to be explosive.</p>
<p>Shorten, who was a central player in the two coups, did not agree to be interviewed for the programs. But they will have fallout for him, reminding people of Labor’s divisions and including his crucial role. And they’ll air in the final two parliamentary weeks before the winter break.</p>
<p>As he faces likely tough months, Shorten enjoys one substantial advantage. Thanks to the change of rules driven by Rudd he has, barring something extraordinary, safe tenure until the election. Labor coups are very yesterday.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43115/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government has always seen Bill Shorten’s union past as a prime target, and now it is starting to take serious aim.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/109912012-12-04T03:33:11Z2012-12-04T03:33:11ZSleaze, smear and social media: how citizen journalists drove the AWU story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18229/original/tyw7y88h-1354491816.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Twitter users are using the #auspol hash to pursue allegations against Julia Gillard.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent opposition attacks on Julia Gillard’s ethics have been underpinned by an unprecedented underground online campaign prosecuted on social media. The questions raised by Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop were foreshadowed in the Murdoch press, which in turn was informed by blogs maintained by right wing activists operating on the margins of the mainstream media.</p>
<p>All this has happened beyond the rarefied gaze of the press gallery, which has become a target for speculation and abuse itself.</p>
<p>Untroubled by ethical codes or even laws covering defamation, contempt of court, racial vilification and even sexual harassment, partisan websites habitually describe government ministers as criminals, repeatedly presenting unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoings as fact.</p>
<h2>The Twitter vanguard</h2>
<p>Postings have been promoted by Twitter accounts such as <a href="https://twitter.com/LaborDirt">Labor Dirt</a>, maintained by a Gold Coast IT specialist, who recycled tweets around the clock on the <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23auspol&src=hash">#auspol</a> hashtag at the rate of one per minute.</p>
<p>Comments are re-tweeted by a chorus of mostly anonymous supporters who confuse personal attacks with political debate. Name calling included “Slagillard”, “Juliar”, “bignose”, “dillard”, “adulterer” and “husband stealer”.</p>
<p>“Gillard more slippery than a bar of soap in a gay sauna” Irving J <a href="https://twitter.com/irving_berlin/status/272933955601313794">tweeted</a> on #auspol. He’d <a href="https://twitter.com/irving_berlin/status/272589303740260352">earlier written</a> that there was no need for those he labelled criminals to actually have a criminal record because socialists were by definition “criminals”. He tweeted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When the grubs r running country, they get what they deserve! thieves & socialist filth to boot.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Pickering’s posts</h2>
<p>The internet campaign has been spearheaded by <a href="http://pickeringpost.com/">The Pickering Post</a>, edited and apparently entirely written by retired News Limited cartoonist, Larry Pickering. Pickering was made famous in the 1980s for his naked caricatures of Australian male politicians depicted with either very large or minuscule penises. More recently, he was <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national-old/cartoonist-banned-from-facebook-for-obscene-gillard-pic/story-e6frfkvr-1226396495741">banned from Facebook</a> for three days for posting a lewd drawing of the prime minister, which featured a naked Julia Gillard talking about the carbon tax.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18234/original/4sp48p8j-1354493571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18234/original/4sp48p8j-1354493571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18234/original/4sp48p8j-1354493571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18234/original/4sp48p8j-1354493571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18234/original/4sp48p8j-1354493571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1196&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18234/original/4sp48p8j-1354493571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1196&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18234/original/4sp48p8j-1354493571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1196&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Blogger and cartoonist Larry Pickering has led the charge against Gillard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dave Hunt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pickering <a href="http://pickeringpost.com/article/gillard-set-to-tough-it-out/794">wrote on his blog</a> that he ignored journalistic conventions to ensure the story about the prime minister, who he clearly despises, was broken. “I copped plenty of flak because I told the story in a different way in order to get the traction it deserved,” he said.</p>
<p>Without citing evidence, or perhaps assuming that it was self-evident, Pickering claimed the story had been suppressed by a government PR machine which defamed opponents; a drip-feed of “feel good” policies, subtle control of the media through press conferences, repetition of the party line and denial.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, he claimed mainstream media political correspondents were also engaged in a conspiracy to ignore the story, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=427233017330862&id=236991276355038">writing</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bongiorno, Grattan, Oakes and minor Gillard sycophants Pascoe, Murray and van Onselen are still in embarrassing denial … Welcome to the real world of investigative journalism, fellas, you have all been asleep. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But Pickering’s form of “investigative journalism” is one that most investigative journalists would not recognise.</p>
<h2>Shock-jocks gone rogue</h2>
<p>Joining the charge with Pickering is Michael Smith, a former shock-jock and retired policeman, who has merged the roles of commentator, publicist and prosecutor. Smith had earlier been prominent at a public rally staged against the carbon tax which was highly critical of the PM.* </p>
<p>In a much publicised <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/host-smith-reaches-settlement-to-leave-2ue/story-e6frg996-1226193141083">falling out</a> with his Fairfax media employers, he objected to being told not to broadcast material contained in an interview about Gillard. Since then, he has maintained a media profile with a [blog](http://www.michaelsmithnews.com.au], through <a href="http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/07/alan-jones-interviews-michael-smith">radio interviews</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_BGGuYJIbg">video monologues</a> distributed on Youtube.</p>
<p>After failing to get a response to questions put to the prime minister’s office, Smith <a href="http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/11/note-to-editorsjournalists-julia-gillard-is-currently-facing-very-serious-allegations-and-victoria-p.html?cid=6a0177444b0c2e970d017d3e27050c970c">wrote that he</a> “reported the Prime Minister’s conduct in the matter of the Power of Attorney to the Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria Police Force”.</p>
<p>When later contacted by a Victorian Police Fraud squad sergeant, Smith said, “I furnished further and better particulars to him as well as some further documentary evidence.”</p>
<p>“The detective then asked me if I could contact Ralph Edwin Blewitt [to become the star witness against Gillard] and if so could I invite him to attend on Victoria Police to make a statement. It’s now widely known that Mr Blewitt did in fact return to Australia as a result of the detective’s request.” </p>
<p>Indeed, Smith could be seen hovering in the backgrounds when Blewitt presented himself for mainstream television interviews.</p>
<h2>Kangaroo court</h2>
<p>So how did Smith get onto the story that ended his mainstream career?</p>
<p>The creator of <a href="http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/">Kangaroo Court of Australia</a>, Shane Dowling, has claimed that a <a href="http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/08/07/australian-prime-minister-julia-gillards-criminal-history-and-her-hypocris-with-wikileaks-and-julian-assange/">post he made in 2011</a> led both Michael Smith and news.com.au columnist Andrew Bolt to pick up on Gillard’s personal history. </p>
<p>He <a href="http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/09/05/has-julia-gillard-blackmailed-the-media-to-cover-up-her-corrupt-past-the-fairfax-media-and-news-corp-scandal/">claimed</a> the government had blackmailed Fairfax and News Limited to keep silent.</p>
<p>Dowling has unsuccessfully sought a press pass for himself to federal parliament.</p>
<h2>The gallery left behind</h2>
<p>Blogger Grogs Gamut <a href="http://alanknight.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-twittering-classes/">has observed</a> in his book The Rise of the Fifth Estate that the press gallery is seen by many as an inward-looking group of insiders. He writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Many journalists in the press gallery will interact only with other members of the gallery, and those who do interact with non journalists seem more likely to do so only to argue with critics. For all the concerns about not being allowed to tweet stories outside their area, few do so. Most tweet links to their own stories or to others in their own newspapers. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This isolation, and dependence on politicians’ handouts, has contributed to a gap between the media and the public now claimed by social media activists. As the Youtube hits to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0">Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech</a> showed, there is a huge audience that is disconnected from the gallery’s view of politics.</p>
<p>But citizen journalists such as Pickering, Smith, Dowling and the leagues of Twitter users on #auspol ignore the niceties of the ritualised dance between political reporters and politicians.</p>
<p>The AWU affair shows how new media has created unimaginable opportunities for free speech, but at a cost to civil political debate, politicians’ sensibilities and often the truth itself.</p>
<p><em>*An earlier version of the piece referred to “Ditch the Witch” banners displayed at earlier anti-carbon tax rallies. This reference has been removed as Mike Smith has informed us that no such banners were present at the rally at which he spoke. We apologise for the error.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Knight ran the national disinformation for the Labor Party in the 1983 elections. He was subsequently sacked and blacklisted for questioning a senior Senator's links with organised crime. He currently blogs about Online Journalism at <a href="http://alanknight.wordpress.com/">http://alanknight.wordpress.com/</a></span></em></p>Recent opposition attacks on Julia Gillard’s ethics have been underpinned by an unprecedented underground online campaign prosecuted on social media. The questions raised by Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop…Alan Knight, Head of the Graduate School of Journalism, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/110352012-11-28T00:00:40Z2012-11-28T00:00:40ZAWU ‘scandal’ says more about the media’s ethics than the PM’s<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18075/original/477cbpc3-1354058155.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Julia Gillard has repeatedly answered questions about her role with the AWU, but it's not enough for some journalists.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every time Prime Minister Julia Gillard repeats statements that she’s “done nothing wrong” in the AWU slush fund scandal story, it seems another journalist joins the fray. </p>
<p>No one covering the story has turned up a material fact to prove that Julia Gillard used AWU money to renovate her house, or that she knew about the misappropriation of union funds from within the AWU, or that she did anything other than what she again told <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-26/gillard-fires-back-over-awu-claims/4392476">Monday’s press conference</a>. But the story’s viral now. And everyone wants a hit.</p>
<p>There’s an ethical problem, not because journalists are choosing not to call this story for what it is, but also because of the fundamental issue of fairness that it illustrates. </p>
<p>The ethical dimension of the media’s pursuit of the prime minister is more relevant to Australians wondering what’s going on with the media than with her. Whatever the public might learn out of The Australian’s chorus of campaigning journalists ready to hit us again with another version of nothing isn’t as important as the demonstrable unfairness. </p>
<p>The Australian media, now and in the past, punches above its weight with fair and accurate reporting on the international stage. But if it’s hard for readers here to figure out what’s driving this pack behaviour towards the prime minister, it must be pretty baffling to those bothering to watch all this from overseas.</p>
<p>There’s nothing fair about the choice by The Australian to run more content as breaking news when what’s already run on the issue has satisfied any duty to the public interest that was rightly claimed. When there’s no respect for factual evidence as it stands today, but merely a speculative stab at what might be a pre-Christmas dream story about a prime minister’s wrongdoing, we might as well be watching reality TV or checking out celebrities on Facebook. </p>
<p>Given that there’s also an assemblage of material showing Julia Gillard had nothing more she could offer the AWU story than what she had already said or supplied, for her to be compelled to keep talking is at best odd and at worst damaging to whatever trust the public still places in its news media. Australia’s public should instead be concerned about who is really running this story and what’s really motivating its players.</p>
<p>On ABC’s 7.30, Leigh Sales <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-26/gillard-fires-back-over-awu-claims/4392476">asked those questions</a> of former AWU official Ralph Blewitt, pointing out at the time that his social media “Likes” of pages devoted to anti-Gillard smear campaigns of the “putrid” kind suggested that his sudden willingness to talk to Victoria Police arose from something other than civic duty. </p>
<p>There’s an ethical problem, too, with cashing in on a story just in case any of it turns out badly for Julia Gillard. She’s accountable now to a much bigger crowd than she was 20 years ago, when her boyfriend was an AWU official and she was a lawyer. But even as prime minister she doesn’t deserve harassment about her past as she goes about her job. </p>
<p>Granted, the prime minister is a much bigger media target than anyone else out there at the moment. It’s no great shakes news-wise, after all, to expose a dodgy union deal. “Big deal”, many would say – and in fact now are, given the comparative lack of attention to the men who had the money, and even to the <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/prime-minister-julia-gillards-former-boyfriend-bruce-wilson-breaks-his-silence/story-fnejm6bt-1226523580332">direct statement</a> by Bruce Wilson that Julia Gillard knew nothing about what was going on.</p>
<p>Mainstream campaign journalism being what it is, competing for its shrinking share of a public attention span focused largely on social media, journalists haven’t let a lack of evidence stop their pursuit of the prime minister. If mainstream media organisations are attempting to compete with the reach and timbre of social media at the expense of a sustained respect for evidence and fact-based reporting, then it’s journalists who practice such things who stand to lose most. </p>
<p>Journalism based on solid research and verified source material has uncovered serious wrongdoing not so long ago in Australia’s past, and for the benefit of a public’s right to know what matters. When there’s hardly anyone willing to question why an array of facts pointing away from the prime minister somehow keeps media organisations hot on her trail, it becomes solely a question of ethics answerable by journalists rather than Julia Gillard.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11035/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Janine Little does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Every time Prime Minister Julia Gillard repeats statements that she’s “done nothing wrong” in the AWU slush fund scandal story, it seems another journalist joins the fray. No one covering the story has…Janine Little, Senior Lecturer Journalism, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/82502012-07-13T06:17:00Z2012-07-13T06:17:00ZLabour pains cause ALP to see red over Greens<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/12961/original/pd52yqnp-1342159189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Paul Howes (pictured) believes the Greens represent a threat to Labor’s electability.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Governments and their partisans are usually reluctant to admit that they might be unpopular for a reason. Labor partisans have offered many explanations for the unpopularity of the Gillard government: for a long period Tony Abbott was credited with truly magical powers, despite all the evidence that he is an unpopular opposition leader.</p>
<p>Perhaps Labor’s campaign against the Greens represents another development in Labor’s crisis. Political operatives and much of the media define politics as about symbolism and “leadership”. Both left and right wildly overestimate the ability of elites to drive public opinion. It has been suggested that John Howard could have stopped Pauline Hanson by a few words or that if Labor MPs after 1996 had said kinder words about Paul Keating, John Howard’s Liberals would never have come to be perceived by voters as great economic managers or the preferred party on economic management. </p>
<p>This magical thinking has reached a new height with the assertion that voter dislike of the carbon tax is because of the government’s supposed “alliance” with the Greens, as if Labor could have somehow assembled a parliamentary majority by force of will alone. I suggest that behind the rhetorical absurdities of Paul Howes and his colleagues lies a more coherent argument: Labor has become too left wing.</p>
<p>It is no coincidence that a leader of the Australian Workers’ Union should believe this. The AWU now incarnates the spirit of the contemporary Australian labour movement as it did once before World War II. Then the AWU was the backbone of the Labor right. It was a union that represented poorly skilled workers who worked in small workplaces and who (particularly before World War I) were often small farmers. Thus the AWU leadership were zealous champions of the industrial arbitration system.</p>
<p>During World War I, the AWU spearheaded the exclusion of the extreme pro-conscriptionist right from the ALP. After the war, the AWU leadership’s cautious pro-arbitration labourism was challenged both by many AWU members and by industrial unions. Eventually the challenge from the left was defeated. Many techniques were employed: the corruption of AWU and Labor Party elections, alliances with employers against militant workers and the repression and victimisation of militant workers by sympathetic state Labor governments. </p>
<p>Paradoxically the strength of class identity in Australia aided the cause of the Labor right represented by the AWU. Workers were intensely loyal to political labour; once the right had reasserted its control over the party, Labor was secure from electoral challenges to the left - even although many workers were disappointed with Labor’s record in government. This crusade of the AWU’s leadership was not a pretty one, but perhaps from a narrowly electoral perspective the AWU was correct. The radicalism of the industrial left frightened voters. Interwar Labor was strongest in those states where the AWU dominated the labour movement.</p>
<p>The AWU’s dominant position within the labour movement eroded after World War II. Economic change undercut the pastoral workforce. In the 1950s, the AWU played a leading role in the expulsion of the extreme right from the ALP when it mobilised against the industrial groups. However, in the post-split ALP, the AWU was progressively excluded by the ascendant left within the party, and the union was no longer strong enough to carry the ALP right on its own. The AWU’s model of pacific unionism, which was dependent on arbitration and sympathetic Labor governments, was less relevant to the affluent and conservative 1950s and 1960s. In these decades Labor governments were rare, and workers now often secured wage increases by collective bargaining rather than arbitration. The AWU’s archaic and racist rhetorical labourism also repealed the Whitlamite social democrats of Labor’s right.</p>
<p>The upheavals in the Australian economy from the 1980s set the ground for an AWU resurgence. The union benefited by advantageous mergers, but more significant was that the industrial relations landscape came to resemble that of interwar Australia. Unemployment was high and the arbitration system became much more important as a means of securing wage increases. Conservative governments championed employer prerogative to an even greater extent than those in interwar years. The balance of power between unions and the ALP reversed. Most unions were now dependent on state support just as the AWU had always been. Thus the priority of industrial labour became to keep the Labor Party in government. Industrial and political labour became increasingly integrated. </p>
<p>In the golden post-war years, the Communist Party had rivalled Labor as a pole of attraction for many union activists, but now political Labor activists enjoy an unprecedented dominance of industrial labour. The Greens, however, pose far greater electoral challenge to Labor than the Communists ever did. Anti-unionism now seemed hardwired into the federal Coalition to a much greater extent than in the 1970s or 1980s or even the 1920s and 1930s. In the logic, then, of Paul Howes and many others in the ALP, the Greens represent a threat to Labor’s electability and hence, “objectively”, to the union movement. They have argued that as Green voters will always preference the ALP their concerns can be entirely ignored.</p>
<p>Labor’s current rhetoric against the Greens is partially an expression of frustration, but it also reflects a deeper anxiety about the survival of the labour movement. Panic may come to supplant realistic analysis and coalition-building for industrial and political labour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8250/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoffrey Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Governments and their partisans are usually reluctant to admit that they might be unpopular for a reason. Labor partisans have offered many explanations for the unpopularity of the Gillard government…Geoffrey Robinson, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.