Comments on: Where would we be without the “Bastard Boys”?

By: matt

matt — Thu, 24 May 2007 15:53:20 +0000

“The NSW govt thinks NSW stops at Gundagai” lol No way,
NSW stands for newcastle, sydney wollongong

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 23 May 2007 20:03:16 +0000

Ginger I do live in the country and I travel to Sydney on the Hume Hwy at least 3 times a year, and it is a goat track in the single lane sections. You are lucky to live in Victoria you have the best roads in Australia. Around here (Albury area) we have roads so bad the council won’t fix them because they are scared to drive on them in case they break their machinery. The NSW govt thinks NSW stops at Gundagi and the Feds can’t find us on a map.

By: barney

barney — Wed, 23 May 2007 09:59:20 +0000

Graham,
At the risk of a conversation that bores everyone else stupid…
And by ignoring my central criticism of your argument ie that the Corrigan/Reith actions were illegal and immoral, you take an “end justifies the means” position.
In terms of the ABC, it is as legitimate to make the conspiracy aspect the framework for the narrative structure as it is to promote the reform aspect. Although i suspect it would not have created as good a story. As with the choice between a conspiracy and a stuff up, go for the stuff up every time so it is with drama. If you’ve got a choice between a great story about opposing sides with a consiracy thrown in as opposed to a dull story about waterfront reform what are you going to choose? Sure the writers erred more on the side of the wharfies and unions. So what? That’s where the drama was. I personally thought Corrigan came out of it ok. The fact that they highlighted the fact that Corrigan and Coombs still lunch together indicated that he has personal qualities which endear him to his opponents.
Yes there were rorts. But those rorts were created and maintained by both sides, union and stevedoring companies. The tragedy (if that’s not too strong a word) of Corrigan was that he chose to deal with the rorts by getting into bed with a government which decided to subvert its own laws to achieve its own political ends.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Tue, 22 May 2007 21:45:07 +0000

I’m not ignoring anything, Barney. By trying to have a narrow argument about what was “legal” or not you’re trying to undermine my central point without dealing with it. That point is that without Corrigan we would not be doing as well now as we are. If Rudd is going to criticise Howard because of bottlenecks on the waterfront then he has to explain how he would have done better.
I’m also saying that a documentary which portrays the unions as the goodies and Corrigan as the baddy is not a fair representation of the facts. You can argue as to whether Corrigan acted entirely fairly, but the waterfront didn’t get into the mess it did because the waterfront unions played fair.
If I had to choose sides, I’d be on Corrigan’s. In the real world you don’t get the choice of perfect alternatives.

By: barney

barney — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:29:36 +0000

Agreed Graham but it is equally impossible to defend the actions of Corrigan and particularly the government in conspiring to break the law.
The thrust of your article was that Corrigan/Reith were right to take the actions they did and that the waterfront was reformed as a result. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means. By this logic Pinochet is justified in organising the terror in Chile.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:06:44 +0000

I wasn’t specifically saying anything about morality, but I don’t think it’s possible to defend the waterside worker’s rorts on the waterfront on a moral basis!

By: barney

barney — Tue, 22 May 2007 11:04:31 +0000

Graham,
Your assessment ignores the consiracy behind the waterfront dispute. You’re essentially saying that morality don’t matter, that economic efficiency trumps ethical and legal behaviour.
Your assessment of the economic credentials of the Howard government also completely ignores the current account and trade deficit which have been used to buy our prosperity. The model practised by this government is the same as that practised by National Safety Council in the 1980s: Borrow and borrow and borrow to cover your debts.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Mon, 21 May 2007 23:22:08 +0000

Lesley, you’ve got a pretty slanted caricature of what a company is and does. Most businesses in this country run as companies. I administer 5 myself. And most of them aren’t a conspiracy against shareholders and the public.
Companies are just collections of human beings working under certain legal rules which limit their personal liability. If it wasn’t for the company structure there’s be a lot less of everything to go around.
Cameron, are you suggesting that ports ought to be made to be deliberately ineffecient to stop people importing goods? I find that a bit bizarre.

By: Lesley de Voil

Lesley de Voil — Mon, 21 May 2007 11:50:38 +0000

Graham, I really think your definition of a company stinks. What matters is how much the directors can get out of their company both before and after the golden handshake. Also consider how much profit goes overseas and doesn’t get reinvested here.
Where are the companies willing to invest in non-oil-based energy projects? Why did the latest solar-power technology project go to China? Why aren’t the ‘local’ car manufacturers investing in the local production of alternative-energy-powered vehicles?

By: Ginger

Ginger — Mon, 21 May 2007 11:15:55 +0000

Alan, try getting out of the city for a drive, I live in country Victoria and believe me there are roads under construction everywhere we go.