The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

If this is true, voting for kevin is just the same as voting for bonzai, only a younger version.
I can't tell the difference between the Labor party and the Liberal party anymore. Gee, the greens are looking good !
Me thinks kevin is shooting himself in the foot.

Nicholson of "The Australian" newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

Nicholson of "The Australian" newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

Greens threat to Labor's IR
August 29, 2007/the Australian

THE Greens have warned Labor that they will have a "mandate" to modify any industrial relations policy if they win the balance of power in the Senate at the next election.

Opposition deputy leader Julia Gillard yesterday issued a warning to the Senate that if Labor was elected it would expect the Senate to respect its mandate for its "Forward with Fairness" workplace package.

But Greens industrial relations spokeswoman senator Rachael Siewert left open the option there could be issues the party might "die in the ditch over" depending on the wording of the legislation.

"If the Greens hold the balance of power, we too will hold a mandate," she said.

"And that will centre around the fact that people want us to be there holding a strong line on industrial relations.

"Obviously you have the Coalition and then the ALP with ?'WorkChoices Lite' and the Democrats are slightly better than that, but we have the strongest IR policy and that has been recognised by some unions.

"Once we seen the legislation would have to decide what are the issues that we would ?'die in a ditch' about."

She listed at top of their concerns were Australian Workplace Agreements, changes to unfair dismissal laws, right of entry and the temporary retention of powerful building watchdog the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

The Greens were also concerned about the extension of any secondary boycott provisions under the Trade Practices Act, with more legislation due from the Coalition in the next parliamentary sessions. ...<cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22327917-601,00.html

Why not challenge the Greens. More of a debate there! :wink::

Rudd challenges Howard to IR debate
August 29, 2007 - 8:42AM
The AGE

Labor leader Kevin Rudd has challenged the Prime Minister to a debate on industrial relations. .....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-demands-ir-debate/2007/08/29/1188067147114.html

I would have thought that was already pretty much the case anyway - even before workchoices.

But you'd be wrong - believe it or not. And the mining companies think $75000 would be better but really they'd rather blanket AWAs.

I still think AWAs hinder small business they really only favour large companies that can get economies of scale out of contract negotiation with invidividuals.

"Getting the balance right"? What is so terrible about union representatives having access to the to the workplaces of their members?:


.....Australian Textile Workers Union spokeswoman Michele O'Neil says some of her members are on Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) because they are scared of losing their job.

Unveiling the latest details on his new industrial relations (IR) policy yesterday, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd Labor would keep current restrictions on unions' right of entry to the workplace.

But Ms O'Neill has challenged Mr Rudd to join union officials on a tour of clothing industry workplaces.

"Then look me in the eye and say that he's going to keep these right of entry provisions," she said.

Mr Rudd has defended the party's decision to keep the restrictions.
"Protections are very important, but at the end of the day my job as the alternative prime minister is to get the balance right," he said.

"When it comes to right of entry laws, when it comes to secondary boycotts, when it comes to mandatory secret ballots underpinning industrial action, we've taken a view that these laws are necessary in order to ensure the proper function of the overall economy." ....[/B]

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/08/29/2018339.htm

Interesting article from <wait for it!> the Australian! :

" .... In essence, the Howard Government has succumbed to the trap outlined by Treasury Secretary Ken Henry. It has been content to consume the fruits of the present economic boom and take the luxury of the soft option. Within this option, Dr Henry said, lurks an intergenerational tragedy that would impose an unnecessary burden on all future generations.

Made worse by the long simmering leadership tensions between Mr Howard and Mr Costello, this inaction has also come at an immediate political cost. We now see Mr Howard struggling in the opinion polls not because of his age or because he has been in office for 11 years but because he appears to have little idea of what to do next. The electorate hasn't been listening because the Government hasn't said anything worth hearing. What is the compelling argument to vote for another term of the Howard Government? The big argument put by Mr Howard boils down to a fear of change. ....."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22329657-16741,00.html?source=cmailer

Oh yeah? :wink: :

That citizenship test. (Oh & did you hear the one about the book Kevin Andrews claimed he "co-edited"?)

Two million Australians below poverty line
Daniella Miletic
August 30, 2007/the AGE

ONE in 10 Australians is living in poverty and faring worse on key health indicators than people in other rich nations, a report shows.

An Australian Council of Social Services report found that 9.9 per cent of Australians, or nearly 2 million people, fell below the international poverty line in 2004 ?- a line set at half of the country's median disposable income for a single adult.

The report, Australia Fair: International Comparisons 2007, details disparity between Australia and 29 other wealthy OECD nations across a range of areas from poverty levels to health and housing.

The report is based on a combination of research including Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, international comparative reports from the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and research from the University of New South Wales.

The report stated that in 2004 more than 1.9 million, or almost 10 per cent of Australians, lived below the poverty line, estimated at an income of $249 a week per person.

Social groups more likely to live below the poverty line included more than 40 per cent of unemployed people, 39 per cent of single adults over 65, and more than 30 per cent of all those people whose main income is social security, the report found.

It also found that according to the UN Human Poverty Index ?- an indication of the standard of living in rich countries ?- Australia ranked 14th out of 18 nations, ahead of only Britain, the US, Ireland and Italy.

Andrew Johnson, the executive director of ACOSS, said the report demonstrated that the nation's poorest were not benefiting from solid economic growth.

"Despite the good economic times and large budget surplus, it's not fair that 2 million Australians are struggling to access necessities like affordable housing and dental care," he said. ...<cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/two-million-below-poverty-line/2007/08/29/1188067191905.html

However, JH doesn't buy it. (He hasn't heard of the working poor, the ever-growing numbers of casualized workers? He doesn't know how loosely "employment" is defined in the stats.?..) :

PM disputes poverty report
August 30, 2007 - 10:25AM/the AGE

Australia's low unemployment rate is evidence that poverty is not rising, Prime Minister John Howard says, despite a welfare report which suggests otherwise. ...<cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/poverty-not-increasing-pm/2007/08/30/1188067235727.html

Greens ultimatum to Rudd on preference deal
August 30, 2007 - 6:29PM/the AGE

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has thrown down the gauntlet to Labor, calling on Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd to agree to a preference deal or risk an election loss.

Labor has been in talks with the Greens and Family First about swapping preferences for the upcoming election, where environmental issues are likely to figure prominently.

Senator Brown today issued an ultimatum to Mr Rudd to agree to swap preferences with the Greens ahead of other minor parties in about 20 crucial marginal seats.

"We've said to Labor for three months we'd do a preference swap in key marginals in the lower house if you give us preferences for the Senate," he told AAP.

"They've been off talking to other parties, including Family First.

"We're just saying now 'here it is, take it or leave it'. If you don't want to give the Greens preferences ... we'll go open ticket in marginal seats."

The Greens would not enter into any further negotiations, Senator Brown said.

An open ticket arrangement means the Greens would not specify that voters direct their preferences to any particular party.

According to ABC election analyst Antony Green, research by former Democrat senator John Cherry and the Parliamentary Library suggests that where the Greens direct preferences to Labor rather than issue an open ticket, the average flow of preferences to Labor increases by 3.5 percentage points.

Labor could expect a preference deal with the Greens to deliver the party extra votes in green-thinking electorates such as Wentworth, held by Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

AAP

Streuth! Labor is surely not even considering doing preferential deals with Family First after the stuff up last time? What are they thinking? That's it! I'm voting Greens in the Senate. And I hope they hold the balance of power! Now that would make things very interesting!

ME TOO ! :wink:

I really can't understand k & j pandering to the business sector like they do. They are certainly not earning any brownie points with the working people. kevin needs to be careful he doesn't do a hewson ... lose an un-loseable election. Me thinks he is on the right path.
In trying to be seen to be balanced, he is tilting too far the other way.

Me too. Mrs Hinge won't though - she doesn't want any possibility that the libs could still control the senate.

And it would be nice to have another Tasmanian feather duster holding the reigns of senate, although being Tasmanian is about the only thing Bob Brown and Brian Harridine have in common.

.... or lose previously un-losable Labor supporters. Where else has the left to go but green?