Election watch
How the ruling class rules
At first glance, it seemed almost a tautology. "Hypocrisy on waterfront" was the title on the Sydney Morning Herald's April 10 editorial. But really, "hypocrisy" and "Sydney Morning Herald editorial" are usually equivalent terms.
It was only when readers got into the body of the editorial that they discovered that the title was intended to refer to someone else's hypocrisy.
That someone else, of course, was the Labor Party and the ACTU: while now they are defending the MUA, in 1989-90 they collaborated to destroy another union, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.
Certainly, no-one could accuse the SMH of that sort of hypocrisy. The paper is completely consistent: it is in favour of smashing unions whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. It cheered the pilots' union's destruction at the time, just as it now revels in the government's plan to deal similarly with the "waste, greed and inefficiency" of the MUA.
The point of recalling history — not usually the Herald's strong suit — was unmistakable. The editorial was intended as a warning to the ALP leaders of the treatment they can expect in the coming federal election campaign if they go beyond token support for the MUA.
If Labor leaders smash unions, they're "responsible". If they criticise union-smashing, however mildly, they're "hypocrites". It's one of the ways that elections are used to ensure that nothing changes.
Closet campaigning
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on April 15 that PM John Howard's office was "discouraging Canberra-based journalists" from joining his three-day campaign trip to north Queensland. Only a pool television crew covered the trip.
Why would anyone want to campaign on the quiet, actively discouraging media coverage? Could it be that Howard wanted to say something to (white) north Queenslanders that he didn't want widely publicised elsewhere?
If so, could words in that category include his praise for National Party federal MP Paul Marek as "classy" and "terrific"? Marek is notorious for his remark that Aboriginal land rights should have been eliminated for "$20 and a box of Jatz".
By Allen Myers