In the Firing Line

This morning I shared the following exchange with Greens MLC David Shoebridge:

The tweet linked to his blogpost on the topic.  

The blogpost seems to be more about shining a light on the Coalition's relationship with the Shooters and Fishers Party.

This is looking more and more like a concerted strategy by the Greens and Labor - in truth, it is something they should have been doing a long time before the election.  The fact that the Coalition sits on the same side of the political spectrum to the Shooters and Fishers as well as the Christian Democrats would have been a great way to fill the policy vacuum that O'Farrell cultivated in the lead-up to the vote.

The ad in question is this:

The associated blurb clearly does use language that leaves a bit to be desired:

But writing bad copy is not a crime.

Shoebridge's blogpost calls for two changes:

• "laws to prohibit these advertisements" and
• "stop easy access to guns"

The claim that these advertisements should be stopped is more than a little confusing.  It doesn't refer to some gun tragedy, nor does it make false claims - all it does is suggest that firing a gun is fun and then (perhaps) glamourises the sport a bit.

Whether you agree or disagree with the sport, it is a legal activity. No doubt the participants enjoy the sport and have fun doing it - if not, no doubt the sport would not exist.

Now, I am as anti-gun as the next guy.  I don't own a gun and (as far as I know) I don't know anybody who does.  I would be horrified if there was a sudden proliferation of guns in the home or (even worse) concealed guns being carried around, as is so common in the US.

If the Shooters and Fishers were to start pushing for expanded rights to carry a concealed weapon you'd be hearing all about it on this blog.

But this brings me to Shoebridge's second claim - this is an ad for gun use at a range.  Shooting at paper targets, using a gun that you cannot remove from the centre.

The post from Shoebridge appears to have been motivated by a Daily Telegraph article he came across while munching on his cornflakes this morning.  I usually try not to read any comments on news articles for fear of getting a headache from all the stupid, but a few of the comments to this story make some sense:

The last comment is (I can't believe I'm saying this about a comment on a news website) a particularly astute one.

A lot of people want to race their cars.  We don't want them doing it on the street at night, so we make that illegal but then allow Eastern Creek Raceway to run "Car Track Days" where people can go and drive fast.

A lot of people want to box as a sport.  We don't want them meeting in a basement to flog each other, so we have the sport of boxing, with all the associated regulation and medical supervision.

People are going to want to give shooting a gun a try, whether it is legal or not.  Far better they do that at a licensed gun range, with instructors and safety gear rather than on a mate's farm where anything could happen. 

To suggest that to allow them to do so is somehow fostering a destructive gun culture is, in my view, an overreaction.

Looking for a Mandate

What does it take for a party to have a mandate? For that matter - what exactly qualifies as a mandate?  Is winning power enough to have a mandate to make the changes you want?


Do you need to specify every change you want to make?  Or just the ones that will piss some people off?


One thing is for sure - it doesn't make a bit of difference. The party that has the votes will get their way, mandate or not.


If a policy has the votes behind it, then it will be passed.  It's democracy. If the voters don't like it, then the party in question will be answerable at the next election.


There was a great deal of discussion in the various debates over the new IR laws about "mandates". Over the weekend, the Coalition "guillotined" the debate and got the bill through the upper house.


It was a little disappointing to see the Greens bleating over the Coalition's guillotine - the Greens took advantage of the rules in the upper house to filibuster for days on end - the Coalition used the rules to end the filibuster and have a vote.


For the Greens to suggest that the move was anti-democratic - well, it certainly wasn't any more anti-democratic than giving a 6 hour speech to prevent a vote taking place.


The Greens and Labor went on at length during the filibuster about the perceived lack of a mandate, although interestingly David Shoebridge managed avoid the topic almost entirely.


Sen Fazio (ALP): The Government does not have a mandate to introduce this legislation, nor does it have a mandate to implement this policy change.


Sen Cotsis (ALP): The Liberals do not have a mandate. A mandate is gained after taking a policy platform to the people, to the electorate. 


Sen Primrose (ALP): No government should take the decision lightly to interfere in such a dedicated organisation without justification, without consultation and, most critically, without a mandate.


And, my personal favourite:


Sen Kaye (GRN):  The deeper theoretical question is: What does it mean in a bicameral Parliament, a two-House Parliament with an upper House, to have a mandate? There is a small matter of the Constitution. The Constitution states loudly and clearly that for legislation to be passed it has to go through the lower House and the upper House. There is no mandate unless it gets through the upper House. The mandate exists only inasmuch as one can get a majority in the upper House. In a bicameral Parliament supported by the Constitution it must be understood that there is no mandate - no theoretical pinning behind a mandate unless and until that legislation is passed through the upper House.

John Kaye.  Picture from NineMSN

(All quotes from the Hansard)


On which logic, the Coalition now has a mandate.


But did the Coalition in fact have a "mandate" to make these changes?


We've heard endless (and, sometimes, mindless) complaints about Gillard not having a "mandate" to introduce a carbon tax.  She certainly had a mandate to introduce a ETS - it is really only her stupid move in guaranteeing no carbon tax that has gotten her in trouble.


But the move is broadly in line with her policy in seeking to put a price on Carbon.


It is true that the Coalition never said before the election that they would eviscerate the Industrial Relations Commission.  It is probably also true that the Coalition did not advertise the move as it would hurt them at the ballot box.


Such is the good politics/good policy divide.


But can Joe Citizen realy claim to have been unfairly surprised by the move?


First of all, this legislation is straight from the Right playbook.  Reduce the power of unions.  Increase wage control to reduce expenditure.  Require productivity increases to justify wage increases.


This is what Liberal governments do when they are in power.  Last time round Peter Debnam lost, in part, because he promised to slash public service numbers. And who could forget Workchoices?  Or, more to point, will the public ever be allowed to, even for a second?

Picture from here

Secondly, Labor complained incessently about the blank cheque that the Liberal was going to be given because of their failure to "be honest" about their policies.  I wrote about that before the election here.


This was pretty much the theme of Labor's advertising in the final few weeks - O'Farrell is not being upfront, he is being secretive, what will he do when he was in power?

A Labor Leaflet.  From electionleaflets.org.au

The difficulty for Labor is that the response from the electorate was a big "Who cares?  Can't be worse than the other lot."  That may or may not be fair, but Labor have only themselves for that.  Perhaps if the governance under Labor had been a little more competent and a little less scandal ridden people might have paused to think about the consequences of their vote.


But, finally, my biggest gripe with this argument is the fact Labor and the Greens expended a significant amount of energy telling people that the Coalition would attack the public service.


Look at this from davidshoebridge.org.au:

From over here

Now, there was no incontrovertible evidence that O'Farrell would cut public service wages.  But that didn't stop Labor going on about it almost incessantly.  Can Labor really claim that people will now be shocked by this move?  


Who could forget this ad, a contender for the worst election ad ever made:





Everyone knew, or should have known, that the Coalition make changes that would weaken the union movement, and do something to reduce the state's wage bill.


No mandate?  Perhaps.  But an unfair surprise? No way.

A Shoe in the Door

David Shoebridge MLC, I stand and salute you.


The Premier may have accused your party of "abusing parliamentary process" but he is just complaining to the media because he doesn't want to force you to stop. 


First up, a confession.  I really have very little interest in industrial relations as a political discussion.


I don't for a second suggest that it is not an incredibly important area of governance, or that the consequences of the decisions made are not far reaching or crucial.


It just doesn't get me excited.  So, for future reference, don't expect to see me writing much about it.


That said, things got very interesting last night.


For those of you not aware, the Coalition is attempting to pass legislation that will, in short, remove much of the Industrial Relations Commission's power.

At present, under section 146B of the Industrial Relations Act 1996:


"A person may apply to the Commission to have a dispute resolution process conducted by the Commission... if the parties are bound by a federal enterprise agreement."


As I understand, a large proportion of the state government's employees are so eligible.


This bill would insert a new section, which reads as follows:

In simple terms, that would give the state government unprecedented control over the pay and conditions of public sector employees.


The Coalition is making this change because of the burgeoning cost of running this state.  The government's wage bill is unsustainable, and something needs to be done.


That said, Labor and the Greens are unsurprisingly horrified by such a drastic grab for power over pay and conditions.


It was always going to be an emotional debate, but I don't think anyone foresaw this.


I've had the chance to review the Hansard of yesterday's proceedings in the Legislative Council, and suffice to say it is thoroughly worth a read if you have the opportunity.


Thursday started uneventfully enough.  There was a 2 hour debate over whether government business (debate on IR) should take precedence over the general business, which it inevitably did.


Another 2 hours was spent deciding if the IR laws should be the general business discussed.


I suppose time must fly when you're having fun.


Sophia Cotsis (ALP) was the first to speak, kicking off at 2:00.  She spoke passionately about the people who she suggested would be affected by the bill, until she was interrupted by Question Time at 2:30.  


After Question Time and Walt Secord's inaugural speech, debate on the IR laws resumed at 4:07.


Cotsis was interrupted by a constant stream of points of order, mostly pertaining to repetition and relevance, no doubt in an attempt by the Coalition to force her to sit down and shut up.  It wasn't until 6:15 that she resumed her seat.


David Shoebridge (GRN) then rose to speak.

Photo from The Australian

He began by speaking about the plight of the "front line workers" and others who will be affected by the legislation. He then turned to discuss the operation of the act and the doing away of the "independent arbiter".


Unlike Sophie Cotsis, he was for the most part allowed to speak without interjection or points of order, at least at first.


He then moved on to discuss the the consequences of the legislation, and specifically the ability of the unions to work with the government to reach industrial solutions.


It was only once the interjections commenced that his true purpose was revealed (if it was not obvious before):

He then moved on to criticise the government for the manner in which the IR laws have been dealt and the unwillingness of the Coalition to put the matter over for public "debate".


The Herald article published today suggested that the Greens and Labor believe that the other cross-benchers (Christian Democrats and the Shooters and Fishers) would have their resolve to support the changes weakened once the new laws received further exposure.


By 9:25, things had started to get ugly:

Undeterred, Shoebridge swivelled back to start quoting from letters he has received from concerned members of the public.  He spoke passionately about the concerns they have expressed to him and their dismay at the changes suggested.


Finally, at 12:15, some 6 hours after he began, Shoebridge resumed his seat.


The President noted the following:

After a few brief speeches in support of the bill, Greg Donelly (ALP) rose to speak.  At 3:19, the long bell was rung, meaning that debate was temporarily suspended, and "Thursday's debate" could resume at 9am on Friday.


Debate continued today.  The Hansard has not been released yet (they're good, but they're not THAT good) but thanks to @tobiasziegler, I know that Peter Primrose (ALP) spoke for two and a half hours, Lynda Voltz spoke for something similar, and John Kaye spoke for marginally less than the 6 hours David Shoebridge managed last night.


As best I can tell from @greencate's tweets, the long bell was rung sometime around about 11pm.  No doubt the debate will continue tomorrow,


To everyone who thinks it is disgusting that the Greens and the ALP are able to get away with this, the fact is, the Coalition is allowing them to do it.  I'm no expert on Legislative Council procedure, but as I understand it, by a simple majority the Coalition could vote to the have the debate truncated.


So why haven't they?  We all recall how O'Farrell frothed at the mouth with fury when Keneally prorogued parliament so long before the last election to try and prevent an inquiry being held into the fire sale.


The Coalition is understandably wary of ending the debate and then having their own words on the issue thrown back at them, and having the fact that the debate on this law was truncated hurled back at them every day until the next election.


But are the Green's tactics, as O'Farrell described them, an abuse of parliamentary process?


I would say no.


As I said at the start, I have no strong views about the IR changes.  But I celebrate the determination of the Greens to fight the changes until the bitter end.


There is a kind of beauty about the process.  Speakers forced to stand and orate, without falling foul of the rules surrounding relevance and repetition, in a desperate attempt to stave off laws that they feel so strongly about.


It is so different from the usual disgusting behaviour we see from our politicians - crude insults and juvenile joking.  These are politicians that believe something.  You might not agree (I certainly have my reservations) but you have to admire their courage and their determination.


Will it make a difference?  Probably not.  The Shooters and Fishers and the Christian Democrats know which side their bread is buttered - they receive generous dispensations from the O'Farrell government in return for their support, and this bill is right up the conservative alley.  They would not have required much encouraging to vote for it.


What the filibuster does is make sure that the government pays the highest possible price.  The Greens come off as the party that sticks to their guns and fight for what they believe (which, to their credit, they usually do), and these IR changes get the exposure that the Greens desperately want them to get.


It is democracy.  Perhaps not as it was intended, but certainly a noble, invigorating version thereof.


And David Shoebridge has broken a record that must have seemed insurmountable at the time it was set.


You may not agree with his position, but I think we can all admire his determination to have everyone know what it is.