Memo To Labor, Your Advertising Sucks

If Labor do actually get over the line this coming election it won't be thanks to their election advertising. In short, it's shit. Every time a program is interrupted by that whining housewife complaining about this, that and everything else I cringe and (for some weird reason) hope that whoever else is in the room has tuned out and isn't really paying attention.

Don't get me wrong, I think all election advertisements are shit, but while we all accept this, we can still rate them in order from the shittest to the less shit and the whining women, this year, rates as the shittest by far. She makes me pine for those glory days when Latham would appear on the screen preceding every sentence with "Labor is ready..." (and I found THAT annoying).

When they call her 'Whinging Wendy' they aren't lying. Thinking about it has put me in the awkward position of agreeing with Janet Albrechtsen today:

'The perception, however, is governments are somehow responsible for "mortgage stress" and the so-called housing affordability crisis. But let's face it. The price of continued prosperity is that many people have simply abandoned financial responsibility, racking up debt to buy bigger homes than they can afford, pumping more money into the housing market and driving prices higher.'

'It won't win you votes to say so but notions of financial restraint and thrift have been replaced with a "have it all now" mentality driven by easy access to debt. The Howard Government has only fuelled that mentality. As The Sun-Herald reported on Sunday, the Government's original first home buyers grant of $7000 is being accessed by those buying million-dollar houses. And then, when interest rates rise off the back of a booming economy, those ungrateful sods cry foul.'

When the Saturday Age runs a profile on a "typical" family previously on a combined income of 140,000 now "struggling" after the arrival of kids on just one income of 120,000 you know something is up. I found it particularly hard to sympathise with the fact that they were forced to sell the Porche for a RAV4. During a boom as large as this where most people's troubles are that they have too much I find Whinging Wendy a bit hard to swallow. Give me the dodgy profiles coupled with slamming door noises are dark music any day.

(On a side note Albrechtsen completely contradicts herself when she later attacks Clive Hamilton's criticisms of today's mentality, they're very close to her above comments)

"Me-Tooism" All Round 2

Well, well, it appears that the much hyped "me-tooism" that Rudd's consistently accused of is actually a contagious bug:

'Mr Howard announced there would be a tax rebate for education expenses, beginning with kindergarten through to the end of secondary school, covering fees, excursions, text books, tools and computer equipment.'

Me-too!!!

'The home ownership plans will involve several schemes for boosting savings, The tax-free home saver account, available from next financial year, would allow $1000 tax deductible contributions with all earnings tax free.'

Me-too!!! And let's not forget:

'Mr Howard went through a number of commitments already made: measures to combat climate change, but not at the expense of the coal industry, the proposed constitutional recognition of aboriginal people in the Constitution.'

Me-too, me-too!!! He also added this complete fallacy:

'The Prime Minister praised Peter Costello describing him as the principle architect of the economic achievement.'

"Principle architect"??? Howard's always been fond of revisionism but this is a bit much. Costello had nothing to do with the early economic reforms made by Labor, which most economists agree, were far more instrumental in the current boom, leading Howard to say in 1996:

'I inherited an economy in not bad shape, not bad shape at all.'

Nor has he any responsibility for China's immense growth which has had such an impact here. (He did give us the GST though)

But back to their sudden breakout of "me-tooism".

It leads me to wonder, who will the government copy when Rudd's not around???

The Interest Rates Rock

I'm so confused right now, and considering the amount of conflicting messages coming our way on interest rates who could blame me?

Originally the Coalition argued that it must remain in office in order for interest rates to remain at "record lows". This at least suggested that government held some control of rates through its use of "economic levers", and that these "levers" would be wrongly tweaked by a Labor government. Argument = government IS responsible for high or low interest rates. So when rates are low, the government can claim credit, and when they're high this logic suggests that the government can be blamed.

Yet now, according to Howard, this sixth rate rise since 2004 is actually not their fault, rather it's the product of a strong world economy, high oil prices and the drought. This may all be partly true but it also leaves one asking why, if it is out of their control, did they campaign that they would keep interest rates at "record lows"? Howard's denial of any responsibility for rate rises since 2004 directly contradicts the Coalition's last campaign theme. But then, Costello isn't buying it:

'The Treasurer said yesterday unemployment was at its lowest level since 1974, but this may be having an effect on inflation.'

"Because unemployment is so low and employers are in some places competing with each other to get employees, that's putting upward pressure on wages," he said.

So it is their fault now, even though the argument he's making is that the government is just too damn good for its own good, he is admitting some blame. You've got to love Costello here as he attempts to turn the rise into a positive for the government, but doesn't this acknowledgement hint at what Labor's been attacking them for all along, ignoring the skills shortage? This has to be one of the key problems for inflation these days and it is something that the government does have some responsibility for. So why did Howard bullshit us? Or was it just semi-bullshit?

With Australians in so much debt it's predictable that politicians will try to use things like interest rates to scare votes out of us. So the layers of lies concerning what's behind rate rises are products of our own making. We need to stop living out of our means, shed some of our excessive materialism and relax. Why be slaves to "things"?

Is The Oz Admitting Its Mistake?

In its editorial 'Reality Bites The Psychotic Left' of June 11th this year The Australian launched a scathing attack on Australia's "Left". Of particular focus were the economist Clive Hamilton and intellectual Robert Manne (the last of which the paper in question is quite obsessed with). The editorial had this to say about 'Silencing Dissent', a book edited by Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and introduced by Manne:

'This is the institute after all that believes in a vast corporate conspiracy to stall action on climate change, accuses David Jones and Myers of "corporate pedophilia" and claims that Australia is becoming an increasingly authoritarian state where dissidents are silenced.'

'This last thesis, expounded at length in Silencing Dissent published earlier this year, would seem difficult to sustain at a time when the marketplace of ideas has never been so crowded. In newspaper opinion sections and magazines and on radio and televisions and increasingly online, Australians are engaged in intelligent conversation about the issues of the day great and small. Blogs and internet chat rooms have given everyone a seat at the debating table. Technology has lowered the barriers to publishing. A host of new periodicals online and in print including The Monthly, New Matilda and The Australian's own Australian Literary Review are providing new platforms for discussion while established journals such as Quadrant and the Griffith Review are reaching new readers and providing a home for new writers.'

As I've argued before, this is a dishonest distortion of the main thesis of 'Silencing Dissent'. The book doesn't ever try to claim that people aren't allowed to express their opinions publicly, the main point of the book is that the Government has shown contempt for public debate by vigorously prosecuting whistleblowers, plugging leaks and politicising the public service and all this without a word of objection from its barrackers, until now that is.

A coalition of concerned media companies began a campaign a while back called 'Australia's Right To Know', of which News Ltd is a key supporter, and they commissioned a report to look into the state of today's freedom of information laws, the prognosis sounds familiar:

'The report's findings show how little dissent the federal Government is willing to tolerate when it comes to the unauthorised disclosure of information'

What's that you say!?

'In each of these cases, the disclosure of the information caused no damage except political embarrassment for the Government'

'Moss accuses the federal Government of harbouring a cold and calculating attitude to whistleblowers, criticising its "dogged refusal"to provide them with legal protection and a "relentless determination to track them down"'

Moss' comments appear to me as though she is actually reading straight from the pages of 'Silencing Dissent', these are two of its core criticisms after all. So where does this put The Australian's editorial position after lambasting Hamilton, Maddison and Manne for daring to say such things not 6 months earlier?

'News Limited, publisher of The Australian, long ago grew weary of the erosion of press freedom and appealed all the way to the High Court for the right to know. It lost the battle, but still fights the war. In May last year, a coalition of media organisations known as "Right to Know" -- led by News Limited and including Fairfax Media, FreeTV Australia, commercial radio, ABC, SBS, Sky News, ASTRA, West Australian Newspapers, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, AAP and APN News and Media -- funded an independent audit into media freedom.'

'The report, launched by News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan yesterday, finds that journalists are struggling to gain access to court documents for no apparent reason. Sometimes, nobody in the court has any idea who is allowed access to what, and all tend to err on the side of secrecy. There is too little protection for whistleblowers, and none at all for journalists such as Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, also of the Herald Sun, who today have criminal convictions because they refused to reveal the source of a story about planned cuts to veterans' benefits.'

'If you, as a reader, care at all for the exhausted, crumbling pillar of democracy that is a free press, demand at this election that both parties breathe life into the Freedom of Information legislation, protect whistleblowers, provide the media with a shield law so journalists can protect their sources, and open the courts to scrutiny.'

It doesn't acknowledge it and proceeds to paint itself as a pioneer on these issues. Are they admitting a mistake? Hell no!

Wormy Troubles

Things are definitely fishy when a channel loses it's feed of a political debate simply because it uses a worm. Conveniently for the Gov, that worm appeared to be cold on them that night:

'Nine Network news boss John Westacott has criticised the National Press Club and the ABC for "doing the bidding of the Liberal Party" when it pulled the network's election debate feed last night.

"It was a disgraceful performance," Westacott told ninemsn.
Westacott said Nine was warned twice — first by the public broadcaster's production chief and then by the Press Club's chief executive — that its live feed would be pulled if it continued using the worm, an interactive graphic that measures audience reaction to the speakers .'

'Westacott described the eventual decision to cut Nine's feed to the debate between Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition leader Kevin Rudd as "the most disgraceful act of censorship I've seen in 40 years of journalism".'

It's all a bit odd. Why should the ABC care if Nine uses the worm?

Press Club vice president Glen Milne said the political parties set the terms and conditions of the debate.
"We were chosen as the neutral venue and provider and the broadcasters, of their own free will, entered into agreements about those constraints as well," he said to the ABC.
"Now when Nine walked away from that agreement and used the worm, it breached an agreement it had with the parties, not with the National Press Club."

Concerning.

Bravo!!!

Pop quiz.

1) An adviser of which government made the following statement?:

'Jews are the source of deadly diseases such as the plague and typhus.'

2) Which president consistently denies the Holocaust and once held a convention for Holocaust denial?

3) Which president vowed to 'wipe Israel off the map.'?

Of course the government is Iran's and the president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A more openly anti-semitic bigot you are unlikely to find as the leader of a nation, and well deserving of the charge of incitement to genocide.

The article that got me thinking about it (as I figure that I must have been OS when this subject was debated) was Dore Gold's today in The Australian:

'As the horrors of the Holocaust sank into the conscience of the newly formed UN, this resolution evolved into a binding international treaty. The resulting convention, however, was conceived to punish the crime of genocide and to prevent genocide. To accomplish this goal, article three of the convention stated that "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" was a punishable act.'

There's no doubt that Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term 'genocide' and pushed for so long for the U.N to adopt the 'genocide' convention, would've believed Ahmadinejad to be the exact kind of leader that the convention was supposed to stop. It's ridiculous that he rails against Jews in the same way Hitler did, yet continues to be treated seriously.

'Actions in Canada against Ahmadinejad are particularly interesting. Irwin Cotler, Canada's former attorney-general, undertook legal proceedings in Canada against Rwandan Hutus involved in incitement to genocide. According to Cotler, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric was "as direct and public, clear and compelling" a case of incitement to genocide as he had seen, even in comparison with the Rwandan case. He did not leave this as a rhetorical judgment alone.'

What's interesting about this in the Australian context is who raised it:

'THE debate in Australia - kick-started by Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd last month - over the applicability of the genocide convention to the threats of mass murder made by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not only welcome. It is part of a larger global movement to find effective ways of stopping Iran from carrying out its declared plan to dominate its neighbours and wipe Israel off the map.'

So "stand for nothing" Rudd (who incidentally stands for varying policies in IR, health, communication, climate change and education) took a stand against someone who is clearly tyrannical. But, as with everything else, this went over their heads also (we know who they are).

Thoughts On Rudd

Every election time it's interesting to watch commentators barrack for their chosen sides. We all know that someone like Piers Ackerman will write himself into a frenzy of anti-whoever's in charge of the Labor Party vitriol, but usually the others remain more subdued in their attacks. Of course we all know who they'll be voting for, but they generally don't preach the Coalition line as transparently as Ackerman.

Janet Albrechtsen, as we all know, just adores this government. The hardest piece she's ever had to write entailed her advising the Liberal Party to drop Howard as leader, it was a real tear jerker and I'm sure one she'll never forget. Today she seems to have read straight from Howard's speech:

'The Prime Minister is undaunted by a presidential campaign. Indeed, on the day the real election campaign began, Howard pinpointed Rudd's weakness. As he said on Sunday when announcing the November 24 election, love him or loathe him, voters have always known where the PM stands on an issue and what he believes in. During the past decade he has earned himself a reputation as a conviction politician, tackling issues unfazed by the howls of opposition from some quarters. Witness his long-time involvement in the culture wars, his sponsorship of gun controls, the introduction of the GST, Australia's involvement in the Iraq war, the intervention into indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Each was pursued because of Howard's conviction on these issues.'

Of course this is all presented in order to highlight that we know little about Rudd's convictions which is the latest Liberal Party line.

'By contrast, Rudd risks being labelled as a craven politician of convenience. That came to the fore last week with his opportunistic rebuke of Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland for stating Labor Party policy on its opposition to the death penalty.'

'Rudd's pursuit of me-tooism also reeks of opportunism. Rudd has pitched his copycat commitments as the sign of a sensible leader who will not oppose for opposition sake.'

And on it goes. Not just in the pages of The Australian but in the Herald Sun also with Andrew Bolt:

'He also copied Howard’s policy to send troops to Afghanistan, keep training troops in Iraq, and maintain logging levels in Tasmania. He even did a me-too on Howard’s May Budget.
How much of that was sincere? Take Rudd’s most recent me-toos - on the Government’s decisions to take in fewer African refugees, approve a pulp mill and keep up funds to private schools. Was that politics or principle?'

'Here’s a more troubling example. Just before last week’s Bali bombing anniversary, Rudd ran into strife over his policy to lobby everywhere against the death penalty, even for terrorists.
He responded not only by junking his policy, but by waving a Liberal document on TV, and protesting: “The Liberal Party’s policy, like Labor’s policy, is identical.”
Identical to Howard’s? That’s all right then. But who will Rudd copy when Howard is gone?'

That last sentence is now fairly popular.

What's evidently clear here is that Rudd's strategy is driving these people mad. Howard has had many attempts at wedging Kev but he simply will not bite, and he's smart not to. Howard's past is full of these little stunts and they've nearly always worked, so it would seem that Kev has been paying close attention. Now he may not be please with some of the decisions he's had to make, but politics sometimes requires such sacrifices from those in charge of major parties. What everyone should be aware of is how far to the right Australian society has swung under Howard. A Paul Keating simply wouldn't get in now, let alone a Bob Brown.

But before the Iain Hall's of the blogosphere cry "so he's a liar then!" they should consider Howard (the conviction politician) when he's been at work in the past. Does he really now believe in AGW, or is it politically necessary for him to now accept it and act? There's simply no difference in behaviour here, the same people lambasting Rudd for recognising what's politically safe acknowledge (with some relief) that this is all Howard is doing in regards to AGW. So this provokes me to ask, so what?

Robert Manne sums it up nicely:

“I think that we will only know what the Rudd government will do in three or four years time because at the moment the Rudd government is avoiding the kind of polemical stoushes with Howard because it knows it can’t win ... when he gets into government then we’ll begin to see the differences again.”

When you read what Rudd has written in the past (his Monthly essays) you realise that this will be the most likely outcome. Does anyone seriously believe that Rudd would pull a Tampa? Does anyone seriously believe that Rudd would dream up Work Choices? Does anyone seriously think that Rudd would be as hostile to symbolic actions when addressing reconciliation? Clearly Rudd is very far from another Howard.

The Labor Loathers And The Death Penalty

It's only been two and a bit weeks but I fell like I've been missing out on all sorts of commotion. Andrews and the Gov have further disgraced themselves by ceasing to accept African migrants (just what is going on there!?) and now the death penalty is back in the headlines. So rather than play catch up on everything, I'll only comment for now on that last, and more recent, issue.

For the record, I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. Not only am I not convinced that it works as a deterrent, but I view it as barbaric, an echo from a less civilised time when raw emotion dictated punishment rather than cool, calm consideration. Some view it as a just punishment for killers considering that they themselves have killed, in short, an eye for an eye. But not only is this view too close to Biblical or Koranic dictations for me (therefore stuck in the past), it doesn't actually make sense when considering where it take us, an assault for an assault? A rape for a rape maybe? Clearly this position isn't well thought through for not only does state sanctioned murder stand alone as a punishment inspired by the crime, but it makes the punisher a killer also. So death creates more death and death alone.


So when one is against the death penalty one should stand by it as a principle and voice their opposition to it whenever the subject is raised as you would in regards to any fundamental principle, and this is all Robert McClelland said. For some to take issue with the timing of his comments is fair enough, but some of the criticism directed at Labor by the usual suspects has bordered on the ridiculous. Take the predictable Labor loather Iain Hall for example:

'The Labor party are without doubt far too soft when it comes to justice for terrorists'

This is quite simply an absurd comment often repeated by other conservative parrots. Because Labor wish to speak their opinions on the death penalty whenever the subject arises they are "soft on terror". Hall's eagerness to see more death in the name of "justice" and his hate for Labor have blinded him to the silliness of his comment.

'...they are far to soft when it comes to the idiots who have been caught trying to smuggle drugs from Asia.'

Here he appears to be suggesting that death is an appropriate sentence for drug trafficking even, and that Labor are now soft on drug trafficking because they similarly oppose capital punishment for the Bali nine!? This may not be what he meant by his comment but it at least shows tacit approval for their deaths. He goes on in this vein but I'll spare you the pitiless rationale. Hall's firmly of the opinion that death is an appropriate punishment at times, indeed sometimes he even relishes in a slow death:

'The revelation that there have been further arrests in relation to this latest bombing campaign certainly is good news. As is the news that one of Glasgow’s would be bombers has burns to 90% of his body. People with such extensive burns seldom survive their injuries and usually have a slow and very painful death, usually succumbing to shock and infection. It could not happen to a nicer bloke now could it?'

How can Hall distinguish himself as the opposite of these criminals when he makes comments like this?

Today in The Australian on another brilliantly balanced opinion page edited by culture warrior Tom Switzer, James Allan has a go at Labor even though, strangely enough, he opposes the death penalty:

'The same holds if, for most Australians, capital punishment is in all circumstances considered to be unarguably the most obnoxious of the many practices on offer in neighbouring countries: worse than female genital mutilation, say, or chopping off hands for theft, or shooting monks who want democracy, or building nuclear weapons, or whatever your pick is from the fairly extensive list on offer.'

Here he's playing that old conservative card where you point out a bunch of other horrible crimes and say "why aren't you campaigning against these also" with the intention of belittling the campaign against crime one. Firstly, some of them aren't state sanctioned activities and are outlawed already. Secondly, Labor do speak out against many of them consistently eg: shooting monks, nuclear weapons. Thirdly, chopping off hands for theft is comparable to capital punishment in that the crime dictates the punishment. So if Allan thinks this is beyond the pale then why isn't the death penalty on his list also?

'For one thing, there is nothing inconsistent in saying you support capital punishment for murder (and even more so for terrorists who detonate bombs in bars, thus murdering hundreds), but not for drug smuggling or indeed anything short of murder. On that basis there is all the difference in the world between the Bali bombers and the Australian drug smugglers.
Second, it is not inconsistent to say, "We don't support capital punishment even for murder here in Australia, but at the same time we do not condemn it elsewhere where it is used against murderers who were given a fair and open trial." '

What a confused position!! Allan is clearly having trouble defending Howard's stance here as to oppose capital punishment is to OPPOSE IT!!!! We don't say "well we don't like it but if you guys want to kill people then we'll support you". Coming from a Howard fan such relativism should strike all other conservatives as worrying.

And finally The Australian's pathetic editorial:

'Kevin Rudd was quick to criticise Mr McClelland's speech yesterday as insensitive on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Bali bombing. Yet the fact is that Mr McClelland was articulating Labor policy. Mr Rudd did not support the death penalty for Saddam or for the Bali bombers, and on October 10 last year shadow health minister Nicola Roxon said that "Australia needs to continue to strongly and clearly state its opposition to the death penalty, whenever and wherever it arises", and not just when Australians are involved.'

And so what!? Labor OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY. This is what you do when you oppose capital punishment.

'While there is bipartisan opposition to the death penalty in Australia, Labor's notion that the Government should state its opposition every time someone, somewhere in the world, is executed is absurd. With more than 1500 executions last, year that would amount to four or five representations every day.'

What a ridiculous comment! Labor don't propose to state it's opposition every time someone is executed, merely every time the subject arises. A consistent position is what they proposed not the rag tag flexible ground we currently occupy. This editorial is a perfect example of the weak conservative stance on capital punishment. In order to look "tough" it's required of them to not mention too sternly that they don't support capital punishment, rather they add it as a side comment before they rail on about the justifications for it.

Just let us know guys, death or no death? Don't duck and weave with your pussy footed anti-Labor moaning.

When Someone Is A Little TOO Pro-American

I lament the fact that so many these days express a knee jerk anti-American opinion, although I do believe that conservatives have successfully exaggerated this phenomenon and have applied "anti-American" to anyone who disagrees with them. But I also think some Australians lean a tad too far the other way, take "Aussies For ANZUS".

This site is just great. Take this:

'Why is it that Australians who are old enough to remember the 1940s are almost always staunchly pro-American? Its because in early 1942 Imperial Japan had conquered ALL of Asia and Australia was next.'

It goes on to tell of the Battle of the Coral Sea yet they've already, in my opinion, made a serious error. I've never met one old Australian soldier who is "staunchly pro-American". In fact I've found the opposite to be true. I've suffered tale after tale about how crap the Americans were compared to the Aussies and how those Yankee bastards stole their women. Whether or not these tales are true is beside the point, what matters here is that they never appeared to be "staunchly pro-American". In fact, my grandfather was involved in a famous incident on a train in Australia where Australian and U.S troops began shooting at each other for a short period!! Such love.

The site goes on and on twisting and twisting the truth, from the Vietnam War to the Australian Labor Party:

'The Australian Labor Party has been, is and probably always will be home to many who despise America. They will turn a blind eye to the world’s most brutal and corrupt dictators yet leap out of bed to attack the United States.'

I'd say, as I've just recently said, that this is a tendency of the Australian far-Left (including the Greens) but I'd hardly put the ALP in this category. In fact the ALP have always been strong supporters of America but these guys seem to believe that when a party disagrees with it's ally it "despises" it. So far Australia has come from thinking independently, to towing the U.S line, that any deviation is now perceived as hatred for the U.S. But when looking at this photo do you think these people could ever think otherwise.

Aust Business Predicts Union Members In ALP Gov!!!!!!!!!!

The Australian's Cut & Paste (anti-Left billboard) has decided to print a bizarre, yet brilliantly insightful e-mail circulating among Australian businesses:

'IF you're considering voting for Kevin Rudd, perhaps you should consider who would sit around a Rudd cabinet table!!
Prime minister: Kevin Rudd.
Deputy prime minister and minister for industrial relations: Julia Gillard, former student radical and AUS president.
Treasurer: Wayne Swan, former ALP state secretary. Attorney-general: Joe Ludwig, former AWU official.
Minister for homeland security: Arch Bevis, former organiser Queensland Teachers Union. Minister for trade: Simon Crean, former president, ACTU.
Minister for transport and tourism: Martin Ferguson, former president, ACTU. Minister for finance: Lindsay Tanner, former state secretary, Federated Clerks Union.
Minister for the environment and the arts: Peter Garrett, lifelong anti-American activist.
Minister for infrastructure and water: Anthony Albanese, former assistant general-secretary, NSW ALP.
Minister for human services: Tanya Plibersek, former student union official, UTS.
Minister for immigration: Tony Burke, former official Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Union.
Minister for resources: Chris Evans, former official, Miscellaneous Workers Union.
Minister for veterans affairs: Alan Griffin, former official, Federated Clerks Union.
Minister for primary industry: Kerry O'Brien, former official, Miscellaneous Workers Union.
Minister for superannuation: Nick Sherry, former state secretary, Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Union.
Minister for sport: Kate Lundy, former official, CFMEU.
And if that wasn't bad enough, waiting in the wings (if they win their elections) are:
Greg Combet: House candidate and former ACTU president.
Doug Cameron: NSW Senate candidate and secretary of Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.
Bill Shorten: House candidate and national secretary, Australian Workers Union.
Richard Marles: House candidate for Corio and former assistant secretary, Transport Workers Union.'

What a bunch of geniuses!! Fancy Union members being so prevalent in the Australian Labor Party. Businesses beware, someone in power may actually care about the little guy if Labor win.