The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Rudd warns against Labor 'arrogance'
Sid Marris | September 18, 2007
The AUSTRALIAN

LABOR must brace itself for a Coalition smear campaign and guard against unjustified "hubris and arrogance," Kevin Rudd said today.

....... Mr Rudd reminded his colleagues that polls were always going to tighten in the lead up to the election.

..... "We will have to expect that the Liberal party and the Government separately will have millions of dollars of Government and Liberal party advertising and that that the government will embark on a fear campaign and a smear campaign," a spokesman told journalists after the meeting.

Mr Rudd also warned colleagues that anyone who behaved as if they had already won would not be concentrating of the core task of explaining Labor's policies to the election.

He warned that any arrogance or hubris was unjustified because it was still a very difficult task for Labor to make up the 16 seats it needed to defeat the Coalition.

"Kevin made it clear that we are all going to be under scrutiny about whether we are showing any signs of hubris or arrogance and it was very important that we didn't," the spokesman said.

"Not just because people would criticise us for it but because it was entirely unjustified.

"The objective circumstances are that we are in for a tough campaign and if anybody starts to show some sign that they think that they are excessively confident that we will win then they will be taking their eye off the job, which is selling our policies"

The spokesman confirmed that Mr Kevin had used the words "hubris" and "arrogance".

Earlier, Treasurer Peter Costello said the Newspoll result was a message to the Coalition that it needed to concentrate on outlining a vision for the future on climate change, water management, tax and employment.

"I would think that the way in which these things were handled last week worked out positively. We now have the opportunity to concentrate on policy," he said.

"We have got the opportunity to put forward a future vision in areas like water, climate, education, tax, jobs and that's what people want to hear us talk about."
Mr Costello said the Coalition has a strong team and it was the duty of the Government to expose Labor's line-up to public scrutiny, suggesting it was a "scary" prospect to consider Julia Gillard as deputy Prime Minister.

"You have got to say at this stage, the Labor Party is still favourite to win the election," Mr Costello told ABC radio. ...<cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22438394-601,00.html

Howard hints at late November poll
September 18, 2007 - 1:48PM/the AGE

Prime Minister John Howard has hinted at a late November federal election, telling Government MPs this morning it might not be their last joint party room meeting.

Parliament rises at the end of this week for a three-week break and Mr Howard has been widely expected to call the election as early as this weekend.

But under the constitution, he could call it as late as mid-November for a January 19 election.

"It may not be the last joint party room meeting," Mr Howard is understood to have told MPs.

Parliament is due to sit again on October 15.

The earliest date for an election called at the end of that sitting week would be November 24. ...<cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-hints-at-late-november-poll/2007/09/18/1189881488853.html

I have money that says Malcolm Turnbull will be the next Liberal Prime Minister.

How much money are you waging on that, dadpad? :wink:

Did you see Tony Abbott get stuck into him (Turnbull) on the ABC news tonight? Apparently the Mad Monk didn't like Turnbull's part in last week's Liberal Party leadership shenanigans.

Yes I did see it, and that (abbots comments) is precisely why I Think its a reasonable bet.

Howard, Downer, Abbot and a few others all live in the same Political enclave.

Looks like AWAs have created more problems than they solve ......

Spotlight, the fabric company that became infamous last year for trying abolish a worker's penalty rates in exchange for extra pay of two cents an hour, announced yesterday that it wants a new, nationwide union agreement, which will include penalty rates.

Spotlight chief executive Stephen Carter conceded he wanted to clear away all the company's different employment arrangements, including Australian Workplace Agreements, in the name of simplicity.

Mr Carter said he was talking with the shop assistants' union about a new agreement.

The straw that broke the camel's back was when the company was told by the Workplace Authority this week that 469 of its latest AWAs would fail the Government's new Fairness Test for reasons as yet unknown.

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association secretary Joe De Bruyn said he was talking to Mr Carter about a national agreement and, "there will be penalty rates without any shadow of a doubt".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/builders-to-run-proworkchoices-ad-campaign/2007/09/18/1189881513962.html

I thought AWAs solved all these problems .........



Most people sick of employer: survey

September 18, 2007 - 2:59PM

It's a case of the grass not being any greener on the other side.

Nearly 60 per cent of workers are not happy with their employer, but almost 50 per cent stick it out because they believe there are not many ideal companies around, a survey released on Tuesday shows.

The report by career networking site LinkMe.com.au found that after taking into account working hours, staff morale, industry, wages, image, charity support and career progression, the 2,000 people surveyed predominantly believed their company did not quite make the grade.

Just over 25 per cent of respondents claimed their company's record regarding staff morale was downright awful, 30 per cent said their working hours were too long and inflexible, 59 per cent reported that their offices are shoddy and drab, and 32 per cent said their wages were far too low.

"Employers must realise that the Australian workplace is an environment of low unemployment so they need to provide better working environments or risk losing staff," CEO of LinkMe.com.au Campbell Sallabank said.

Those that are deemed to be respectable and glamorous firms with great working conditions are few and far between.

Only 17 per cent said they believe they worked for an ideal company, while 33 per cent said the competition was tough to get into those types of firms.

Predominantly, staff morale (75 per cent), wages (68 per cent) and proximity to home (54 per cent) are the factors considered when determining the ideal companies.

"Workers should not hold back from trying to improve their office environment," Mr Sallabank said.

"There are all sorts of ways where employees can be successful in obtaining this but if attempts continually fall on deaf ears then voting with your feet is the best way to improve the situation as there are plenty of good employers out there."

© 2007 AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Most-people-sick-of-employer-survey/2007/09/18/1189881494353.html

I saw that, bungie. To me it looks like Spotlight has seen the writing on the wall: It's looking like a Labor victory this election (if it ever happens! ) & they're just making the necessary "adjustments" to fit the new circumstances. Just getting back in step with what's possible & what isn't. They'll still make a healthy profit, of course, but it's no longer the JH-inspired free-for-all that they'd previously imagined was possible! :wink::

I'm convinced that JH's IR "reforms" were his biggest mistake & have been a major cause (along with his blind allegiance to all things George Bush) of his dramatic fall from grace. He completely abused his majority in both houses after the last election & imposed his wildest, cruelest IR fantasies onto ordinary people's lives. And the silly bugger was so convinced of his own invincibility that he didn't realize that he was alienating those very "battlers" who'd won him election after election. Just goes to show how unlimited power can distort one's perceptions. He really thought he could do anything & get away with it!

Well worth a read. And check out the writer of the article! :

The truth about tax
John Stone (Treasury secretary from 1979 to 1984. This an edited extract from an article published this month in National Observer.)
September 19, 2007
The AGE

Years of surplus should have been used to ease the burden on workers.

IF FEDERAL Treasurer Peter Costello were running a major Australian company the way he is handling the country's finances, and presenting false accounts qualified by its auditors and the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the way he has done with income from the GST, he would risk being charged in the civil courts by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for deceitful and misleading conduct.

But Mr Costello seems to feel that he can do as he likes and that he is above the accepted community standards of truthful behaviour. The Government's decision to deny that the GST is a Commonwealth tax, and to portray it instead as being merely a tax collected on behalf of the states by the Commonwealth acting as their agent, was an act of palpable dishonesty.

This dishonesty is repeated, year by year, in statements not merely by the Treasurer but also by his department.

The Commonwealth Statistician, having retained sufficient statutory independence to take a truthful view, correctly treats GST receipts as Commonwealth revenue, and their disbursement to the states (after deducting a charge for costs of collection and administration) as Commonwealth expenditure, namely payments to the states. The Auditor-General agrees.

The fiscal sleight of hand involved in this underpins the Government's perennial untruthful claims to have cut our taxes. True, it says, we introduced a GST, but we abolished the former wholesale sales tax that it replaced, and cut personal income tax and corporation tax (as well as forcing the states to remove some of their minor taxes). The result, it claims, has been lower taxation overall.

... <cont>


http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-truth-about-tax/2007/09/18/1189881511208.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Well, while I think the tax burden is overly heavy, I wouldn't mind seeing that $17b (or whatever) surplus going into the future of Australia...namely as I see it, going into green electricity and water infrastructure, and give great tax incentives for green cars like hybrids and ethanol based engines - say, no tax whatsoever. I think if we are looking to the future at all, then we have to lessen our dependence on oil and fossil fuels. One of the truths about oils and other fossil fuels is that they will eventually run out, and as they get closer to exhaustion, their prices will increase, which will decrease the surplus. So acting now is in our countries best interest (I personally would pour the next 5 years or so's surplus into this)

I don't mind paying my fair share of tax, either, vikorr, but would like to see it used more responsibly. I become really tired of the federal government constantly claiming that inadequate funding of public education, health, etc, is solely the fault of the states. Clearly the federal government is hanging onto a huge proportion of the GST & direct taxation takings, to do with as they choose. And this level of tax is really tough on people who are struggling to make ends meet, particularly those on pensions, fixed incomes, the unemployed or those in casualized work, as Stone said. (And on top of the direct & indirect (GST) taxes there are also the increasingly hefty "service" payments for gas, electricity & water ... all those corporatized services that the public used to own.)

I quite agree that they don't give the States enough money to carry out their responsibilities properly. And I agree that a decent percentage of the surplus would go a long way towards solving that problem. They are major problems, and they need to be addressed.

The reason I suggest what I do is that it will achieve a number of things.

Firstly it will help reduce our emissions, and can be Australias part to help combat global warming. If climate change scientists are right, and within 20 years we will have lost the Great Barrier Reef to Global warming, then it is too late to save our reef, but if we are to save our other vulnerable ecosystem (and eventually ourselves), the time to start acting is now - not after we've saved the health system, or the road system, or some other system (which while they need fixing, don't appear to threaten the whole of humanity).

Secondly it sets us up for the future, which, by the time fuel prices spiral as oil reserves run low, may be too latez. If we plan for the future now, Australia won't face as great an economic crisis when the fuel supplies run low...and it will cause an economic crisis as the price of everything will soar, pushing up costs for business, who then pass it on to consumers, who can afford less, and therefore buy less luxuries, which will put many luxuries dealers out of business. There unemployed pool quickly increases, rapidly increasing the amount of people unable to buy as much as they once could, which effects the bottom line of non essential items companies (ie non food, clothing etc), which forces some of them out of business...which increases the unemployment pool...and so on.

Basically it's a recipe for a recession, and it will hit most of the western world (which, because they aren't planning for it either, means we will go into recession whether or not we do this, but at least we can have our own economy buffered).

And when the world finally does run out of oil, what then? These things take years to implement. Will it be a mad scramble by everyone for the same resources needed to keep their economies going?

How will the trucks that keep the economy keep going? Its eitherwise electricity, gas, or ethanol at this stage...and you can probably rule out electricity, but that's only a guess on my part.

The insane thing is: because everything is privatised (energy, water, communications) there is no role for government investment. The market and the business operating in it determine whether there will be investment in these areas.

And the govt cannot compete with private interests - if the government set up a clean green power station with tax payers money the industry would drag them into the courts, and win, using their own competition law.

I used to wonder how electric companies felt about incandescents being replaced with long life low power flourescent bulbs - if we use less electricity they make less money. Wouldn't matter if they were govt owned. Imagine if electricity generation was still owned by us (manageed by the govt). Imagine massive govt subsidies for rooftop solar panels, where every house, school, hospital, sent power to the grid. Power bills dropping (what you give to the grid gives you a credit against what you take). Massive reductions in coal burning plants. A boom in the R&D of solar technologies resulting in a booming tech sector exporting products and/or patented production techniques to the world.

If anything's going to be done it has to be done at grass roots level (either through consumer preference or consumer action). A possibility is the rise of the collective or co-op.

In the Sydney water area we're facing significant price rises for water. Why? Because it's no longer financially viable because with water restrictions, people are paying less because they're not using as much water.

NORTH SOUTH PIPELINE

Before the last election Labor promised to never take water from north of the divide
Irrigators pay for 100% of their entitlement and rarely receive their full allocation
The water will be sourced from Eildon which currently stands at 22% of capacity.
The only time Melbourne needs water is in a drought which is precisely when there is nothing extra.

MINISTER REFUSES TO GUARANTEE WATER FOR ENVIRONMENT
Friday, 24 August 2007

Minister for Water Tim Holding has refused to guarantee that his government will keep its promise to provide environmental flows for the Murray River and the Snowy River, before water is taken to Melbourne in the controversial north-south pipeline.
Given the Labor Government has already made commitments to provide a further 170 billion litres in environmental flows for the Snowy and Murray, I asked the Minister to guarantee that those promises would be kept before any water was pumped to Melbourne
Will the already stressed Murray and Snowy Rivers miss out on water so Melburnians can water their lawns?
The north-south pipeline which plans to pump 75 billion litres per year out of the Goulburn River for Melbournehas recently been upgraded to carry 100 gig.

About 370,000 megalitres of partially treated wastewater a year in Melbourne is pumped to sea via outfalls. That water is a wasted opportunity - it could be further treated and recycled for use on Melbourne's parks, gardens, recreation areas and appropriate industries.
Rainwater tanks could effectivly water much of Melbournes domestic gardens.