"Army email scandal: Expert says sexism is deeply ingrained in Defence Force"
Labor saved Australian with good stimulus practices, yet the Australian people are being suckered by Murdoch paper polls, general right-wing media double standards, and negative opposition tactics.
To read the mainstream media at the moment, you would think Australia was being ruled by Visigoths or that we had somehow returned to subsistence survival.
The same article put the PM's problems down, in part, to her not having had a baby, and offered this brilliant piece of analysis:
Meanwhile ... middle-of-the-road voters have written her off as bulls**t artist and are declaring themselves for a Liberal leader they largely hate because anything is better than a leader you simply cannot believe.
Yes, that's right. People are longing for the honesty of Tony Abbott.
Lying is, of course, at the heart of the attacks on the Prime Minister herself, which personally, I think is fair enough. Politicians should be called out if they lie.
The hilarious thing about such attacks is that their intensity and the level of sheer repetition they garner would make an outsider think that this was the first time in the history of Australian politics that a government had reneged on a commitment or said one thing and done another.
As anyone who dared criticise John Howard's tangential relationship with the truth will know, many of those now getting the vapours about Julia Gillard's dishonesty were more than willing to excuse such behaviour from him.
In fact, a standard theme of commentary throughout the Howard years, recycled as holy writ by journalists and other sage readers of the political entrails, was that 'the punters' didn't care about Howard's lying.
Anyone who brought up his "non-core promises", his selling of the Iraq War on the basis of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, his and his ministers' knowledge of matters to do with the AWB's dealings with the same Hussein, or his appalling behaviour regarding the children overboard affair, was liable to be treated to chapter and verse about about how such complaints were the sort of thing that only concerned 'Howard haters'.
Decent, ordinary people were too busy getting on with their lives to concern themselves with hairsplitting about what Howard did or didn't say.
Part of the logic governing rationalisations of Coalition dishonesty was that people didn't worry about it because the economy was going so well. Low interest rates, low unemployment, and a booming mining sector stopped any temptation to hand-wring about ethics.
Oh, how times have changed!
Now, we are regularly told, it is the decent ordinary people who are mortally offended by any and all political dishonesty. We are told that they are shocked - shocked! - that a politician might not be as pure as an angel riding a unicorn in the land of clouds and sugar. We are told that having the most successful economy in the world is irrelevant.
The change of narrative is simply extraordinary.
Of course, none of this is to excuse the various problems of the Gillard Government. But there is a point to make about the level of aggressive hysteria that currently infects mainstream commentary about this government.
It cannot simply be explained by the performance of the government or the behaviour of the current prime minister. If economic issues are what matter, then this government is performing as well, arguably better, than the Howard Government, and in much more difficult circumstances.
It cannot simply be explained by the 'scandals' each government brought upon itself.
Maybe you can argue that Gillard's problems with Slipper and Thompson are more serious than Howard's with, say, Mal Colson .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_Colston .. and the plethora of ministers he had to sack for breaching the code of conduct.
But the differential doesn't explain why so many commentators were willing to excuse Howard's problems but portray Gillard's as some sort of existential crisis for Australian democracy itself.
And honestly, what is more serious than a government committing the nation to war on the basis of demonstrably false intelligence? Compared to that, shifting positions on a price on carbon is small potatoes.
So what's going on?
Stripped of all the self-justifying nonsense used to maintain the rage that currently fills our newspapers and airwaves, there are three pertinent distinctions between this government and the Howard Government: it is a Labor Government, it is a minority government, and the current prime minister is a woman.
Being a Labor government not only alienates the dominant right-wing media, it brings business into public discussion in a way that simply never happens with a Coalition government.
Bad behaviour by Howard was excused by a phalanx of media apologists. Policy disagreements that would have been discussed in backrooms with a Coalition government are now made the subject of multimillion dollar advertising campaigns.
The hung parliament forces the government into deal making that is nearly always interpreted as weakness by the media, and they also tend to preference stability (interpreted as 'strength') over achievement. The buzzword is 'authority'.
Gillard being a woman means she is judged by a different standard, and let's not pretend otherwise. It may not be a decisive matter, but it is one that shifts the balance of interpretation.
When she is tough, she is seen as treacherous and unbecoming. When she prefers compromise and negotiation, she is seen as weak. Oh yeah, and she doesn't have kids: how can she relate to 'normal' people?
The Gillard Government is far from perfect, and ultimately has no-one to blame for its poor standing but itself. All I'm trying to put my finger on is why their bad behaviour is deemed so much more unacceptable than the bad behaviour of the previous Coalition government. Those three reasons are key.
Tim Dunlop was the author of two of Australia's most successful political blogs, The Road To Surfdom and Blogocracy. View his full profile here.
Pregnancy overtakes disability as top source of workplace discrimination complaints
The World Today By Lucy Carter, staff
Updated 1 hour 36 minutes ago
Australia's workplace watchdog has revealed that pregnancy discrimination is now the number one complaint against the nation's employers.
The Fair Work Ombudsman says its figures indicate that for the first time there were more complaints about pregnancy-related discrimination in 2013 than for complaints related to mental or physical disability.
Business analysts say it is yet another indication that far too many employers have archaic misperceptions about women, and need to build more flexible workplaces.
Of the 235 complaints to ombudsman, 28 per cent were from pregnant women and 21?per cent were from people with physical or mental disabilities.
Around 11 per cent felt their family or carer responsibilities resulted in them being treated differently.
The commission investigated 76 matters, took three to court and executed enforceable orders in another three.
"Pregnancy discrimination is still alive and well in Australian workplaces." Elizabeth Broderick
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick says it shows employer attitudes must change.
"I think the key message is that pregnancy discrimination is still alive and well in Australian workplaces," she said.
Ms Broderick says attitudes need to change.
"Women represent more than 50 per cent of the Australian population. They represent half the talent pool that exists in this country," she said.
"And smart employers understand that actually, keeping women attached to the labour market through flexible work arrangements, through parental leave, whether it's the national scheme or a private scheme, they're important strategies to ensure that all people can contribute to the productivity and stronger economy of this country."
ACTU president says bias against women rife
Under Australian workplace laws, women have a legal right to take maternity leave as well as the right to return to the job they left.
Employers are not allowed to make a woman feel uncomfortable about being pregnant, and must modify any shifts or tasks that could become difficult to complete.
The Australian Council of Trade Union's president, Ged Kearney, says it is clear these laws are not always obeyed.
She says pregnancy discrimination can happen in a variety of ways.
"I think it's a deep-seated bias against women with children being in the workforce. I don't know, maybe it goes back to the '50s and '60s." ACTU president Ged Kearney
"Discrimination actually whilst pregnant, at work, where, for example, women are not allowed to get lighter duties in the later pregnancy," she said.
"They are not allowed extra toilet breaks, with dire consequences. We have heard of a number of professional women experiences along the lines of handing in a request for maternity leave and being told that they might as well be handing in a resignation letter."
Ms Kearney says archaic attitudes towards women do not belong in modern workplaces.
"I think it's a deep-seated bias against women with children being in the workforce. I don't know, maybe it goes back to the '50s and '60s," she said.
"It certainly goes back to the fact that I think a lot of men now are in are still in predominantly in managerial positions."
But she says there are many employers who realise the value of providing a flexible workplace.
"We've got lots of employers out there who are now offering incentives for women to come back after maternity leave," she said.
"They're giving them bonuses and offering to subsidise childcare because finally, I think, many employers are seeing the benefits to the business of having skilled women back in the workforce with that corporate knowledge and with that loyalty."
Sex Discrimination Commissioner says role of fathers also important
Ms Broderick is travelling around the country to teach people how to deal with discrimination and educating employers on good habits and practices.
She says it is important for the health of the economy for workplaces to be able to help employees balance work and family.
"We need to be in the mindset which recognises that women and men need to work and care and we need to work to make that fit together," she said.
"By recognising men and their caring responsibilities, it sends a strong message that he can be a serious player at work and an engaged father."
She says fathers need to step and make their caring responsibility visible to others, which will also help women.
Ms Broderick points out that just as women and men returning to work after parental leave face practical and financial challenges, so do some employers and especially small businesses.
The Human Rights Commission has launched a research project into the issue of pregnancy discrimination. It is expected to report back early next year.
Topics: pregnancy-and-childbirth, family-and-children, discrimination, community-and-society, business-economics-and-finance, work, australia
Pre-existing conditions can mean a whole pluthera of things from acne to stress to pregnancy. There is a list as long as my arm of conditions which could lead to insurance companies to denying or dropping customers. More than 1.3 million Wisconsinites under the age of 65 have been diagnosed with a pre-existing condition.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
