ALP Boss: It Was WorkChoices What Won It

ALP National campaign director Tim Gartrell's rather illuminating address to the National Press Club this week was remarkable for both what he said and what was illustrated by what he omitted. It wasn't a searingly frank assessment of the ALP campaign and I doubt anyone expected such from this 'disciplined' electoral machine. But he did mention, and go on to re-mention nine times, the WorkChoices laws. It was obviously central to the defeat of the Howard government, ranking above any other policy area he mentioned. It was the only distinct area of policy he identified apart from Interest Rates. The general thrust of his analysis is best summed up when he said "WorkChoices were attracting very large numbers of voters in the 45-65 age band who had previously voted for the Coalition", and "Labor’s messages about WorkChoices and industrial relations and ending the blame game in health crossed all demographic boundaries", or "Labor won seats with a high proportions of labourers - seats like Blair, Braddon, Flynn, Page and Wakefield but also in seats with high proportions of blue collar workers, including technicians and trades people, machinery operators and drivers". And why?

They were under financial pressure. They were worried about WorkChoices. They were worried about their kids’ future.

He also explodes another myth that can best be described as "what economic boom?"

What the Government didn’t understand was what Kevin Rudd knew – that people are doing it tough; particularly in outer-metropolitan and regional areas where our feedback was that family finances were tightening significantly.

This is where Gartrell's analysis gets interesting. Was it the ALP that led the community opposition to WorkChoices? Did the ALP run a two-year marginal seat campaign highlighting the impact of workchoices? Did the ALP create the groundswell of unease out there in the community that shifted votes? Of course not. That role was played by the community driven Your Rights At Work campaign, which Tim forgot to mention. He did mention that the ALP committed to getting rid of WorkChoices - except for unfair dismissal laws, prohibited content, comprehensive awards, union right of entry, etc. etc. I don't think Tim is an ostrich in the sense that so many of the media from another planet are. I think he knows damn well where and how that election was won, and it certainly wasn't from Centenary House. As he mentions in his concluding statements, this election was won because the ALP stood on the shoulders of others. Those 'others' where the thousands of people in the community who organised around the Your Rights At Work Campaign. Tim did a good job of explaining the trees to us - he just couldn't see the forest.

The Full Nelson

If ever you wanted confirmation that the ALP is prepared to play both sides of the fence over the Your Rights At Work v WorkChoices battle then check out nelsonfacts.com It's an attack website put together by the national secretariat of the ALP. The site pretty much spends its entire energy ripping into new Liberal Leader and current Tool Of The Week Brendan Nelson for his support of the WorkChoices laws. The site is Authorised by ALP National Secretary Tim Gartrell, who was fellated in a nauseating piece in the SMH over the weekend as if he personally was responsible for getting rid of the Howard Government, rather than the thousands of ordinary Australians in the Your Rights At Work campaign who actually DID make a difference. I mean, after all, all Tim had to do was turn up on election night - the heavy lifting had been done out in the marginals for him. Left to his own devices he would have given us a repeat of his brilliant performance in the 2004 campaign, where he succeeded in making the Liberal Party look attractive enough for them to get control of the senate. If the laws are as bad as Mr Gartrell and the Federal secretariat of the ALP say they are, then why is the ALP government sitting on their hands whistling Dixie as if WorkChoices isn't a very real problem faced by working people STILL. And the very modest changes they are proposing (that won't take effect for half a year at the earliest) do nothing to help people who:

• Are forced to sign an AWA to get a job in the next six months
• Want the union to visit their workplace to help organise co-workers
• Work in the building industry and wish to keep union matters confidential (gaolable offence if they refuse)
• Work in the building industry and want to promote their union at work
• Want to include content now prohibited in collective agreements, such as union training.
• Have the conditions Tim Gartrell is so keen to promote ripped out of their work agreements

In the meantime don't speak up - you can still be sacked under Howard's laws for at least another six months, probably longer if we take the word of Julia Gillard. What we are seeing here is a grade one, first class exercise in hypocrisy. The ALP was quite happy to hide behind the Your Rights At Work campaign to get into office - now they are there they are not exactly exerting themselves to protect Australians who are under the gun with these new laws. It's a cynical, gutless exercise that will blow up in their face if they're not careful.