EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Syria playing dangerous game

ONLY the naive believe the deadly clashes along Israel's borders on so-called Nakba Day (in the Palestinian lexicon Catastrophe Day, the day Israel was founded) are a signal that the spirit of defiance and confrontation that has challenged regimes across the Arab world is now inspiring Palestinians to greater militancy.

There is some of that, to be sure. Palestinians desperate to advance their cause could hardly remain untouched by the images of demonstrators boldly rising up to achieve change in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. But the choreography of what happened on Sunday suggests a more complex dimension to the clashes that occurred as Israeli soldiers opened fire on thousands of Palestinians marching from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.

Central to that choreography is Syria and the Baathist regime of President Bashar al-Assad, which is seriously under threat from demonstrators, together with its close ally Iran and Hezbollah, the catspaw they jointly created to control South Lebanon. For 37 years, the truce between Israel and Syria, where about 500,000 Palestinians live, has kept the border between the two countries remarkably quiet. The Syrian army has placed the border off limits to outsiders. Similarly, nothing in South Lebanon -- where there are another 500,000 Palestinian refugees -- moves without the permission of Hezbollah. That these two borders should suddenly be the scene of the co-ordinated demonstrations and violence witnessed on Sunday suggests Mr Assad, as he brutally seeks to survive, is now playing his long-anticipated Israeli card. He is cynically telling countries pressuring him to reform his odious regime that if they persist in trying to force change, he can cause serious problems for Israel.

The extent of his manipulation is shown by the fact there were no demonstrations across the border with Jordan, where two million Palestinians live. Jordanian authorities intervened to stop marches towards the border.

Mr Assad is playing a dangerous game. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understandably has made it clear he will do whatever it takes to protect the country's borders.

The Syrian dictator should be left in no doubt that his diversionary tactics will not work. There is no alternative for him but to negotiate with those seeking change in Syria. The sooner he realises that and stops his nefarious activities, the better. 

NBN could hit taxpayers twice

EVIDENCE at a federal parliamentary committee in Sydney yesterday highlighted a growing crisis enveloping the $36 billion NBN project.

The committee shed light on two failures in oversight by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. The Australian previously has revealed that NBN Co chief Michael Quigley held a senior role at French communications giant Alcatel during a period it was found to have been involved in corrupt practices. Despite this being on the public record, the minister was not aware of it at the time of Mr Quigley's NBN appointment. Mr Quigley is not accused of acting improperly and we have reported his explanation that the corruption investigators did not see a need to interview him. However, our investigations exposed blatant factual errors in his claim that the corruption occurred in areas of Alcatel outside of his responsibility. Yesterday, Mr Quigley admitted he had in fact had oversight of the operations in at least one of the South American nations where the bribery occurred. He corrected the record and "unreservedly" apologised for his error.

The committee also took up the revelations from opposition spokesman Malcolm Turnbull, reported in our pages at the weekend. Despite planning to pay Telstra $9 billion compensation for decommissioning its copper wire phone network, NBN Co has not insisted on maintaining rights to that network. In other words, if a future government, Liberal or Labor, sees sense in switching from fibre-to-the-home to fibre-to-the-node technology in some areas, it will have to negotiate with Telstra to regain access to the copper wire network. In the likely event this occurs, taxpayers will pay Telstra to decommission the network and pay again to recommission it. Mr Quigley agreed that FTTN would be cheaper in some situations, with the potential to save billions of dollars. But NBN Co had not made any allowances for this possibility because the government demanded an FTTH model. Mr Quigley said he would not investigate the potential cost savings of a hybrid-model unless instructed by his shareholder, the government. Taxpayers are entitled to be angry that none of this was considered at the start of the nation's largest infrastructure project. The lack of a rigorous cost-benefit analysis is more troubling by the day. 

Gender equality ruling increases wages pressure

YESTERDAY'S Fair Work Australia decision is a significant and potentially worrisome landmark in Australia's equal pay history.

The Australian, of course, supports equal pay between men and women for work of equal value but until yesterday most Australians had every right to think that is what we already enjoyed in this country. This decision appears to give unions a significant victory in widening the equal pay agenda. It certainly will add to wage costs in the community services sector but could also lead to more widespread wage pressures.

Younger Australians might find it hard to comprehend how only a generation or two ago women were paid considerably less than men for doing exactly the same work and were forced to resign their public service jobs when they married. Landmark wage cases in the late 1960s and early 70s, together with the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, consigned this form of discrimination to history.

But the import of yesterday's case arguing for pay equality between social and community services (SACS) workers and their counterparts in the public service is that it finds a whole sector of the workforce has missed out on pay equality because the majority of its workers are female. SACS workers typically work for government-funded community organisations providing such services as childcare, disability support, women's refuges and employment training. On average, they are paid significantly less than their public service counterparts. The Fair Work tribunal found: "We consider gender has been important in creating the gap between pay in the SACS industry and pay in comparable state and local government employment." Rather than looking at individual jobs and ensuring men and women receive equal pay for their work of equal value, this case examined a whole female-dominated sector and sought equality with comparable sectors where, presumably, gender was not an issue. There was no attempt to make comparisons with similar male-dominated sectors.

The decision rejected the unions' claim to immediately make up the pay gap but nonetheless found the gap must be narrowed. It has instructed unions and employers to negotiate options for addressing the differential and it will further consider progress in August. The cost impacts on governments and government-funded organisations could be quite serious, depending on the degree to which the pay gap is closed and over what time. The tribunal noted these cost pressures could jeopardise employment and compromise services but it was also critical of governments for failing to provide estimates of likely overall costs.

Unions, predictably, are welcoming the decision as a historic victory, but some employer groups are warning it could create major problems even if applied only in the community services sector. The broader implications, if this ruling sets a precedent across other gender-biased sectors such as retail or hospitality, could be more significant. This occurs at a difficult time for the economy when state and federal budgets need to be trimmed and there are already strong wage and inflationary pressures. Unions and employers should continue to be mindful of equality but they must also not lose sight of preserving jobs.