The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Yes, but the problem is that the untruths & broken promises have become so constant, so relentless, goodfielder, that we've almost come to accept them as a natural state of affairs in Oz politics. Who expects politicians to be truthful anymore? I honestly forgot what JH would "never ever" do. Odd, because I follow Oz politics very closely. I hate what Howard has done to to the political process here. It's just a cynical game, playing the voters for mugs. It's downright depressing, that's what! I don't blame young people for becoming totally switched off & disenchanted, if this is what they're presented with.

An end to compulsory voting might be a remedy for apathetic young voters, perhaps?

Exactly, Mirriwinni. The logical next step.
Actually, isn't it already on the Liberals' agenda?

Last Update: Friday, July 8, 2005. 2:20am (AEST)

Democrats want more scrutiny of Govt ad spending

The Democrats say there needs to be greater public scrutiny of government advertising, as the Federal Government prepares its weekend newspaper campaign to sell its industrial relations reforms.

The Government spends $100 million a year on advertising.

Democrats Senator Andrew Murray says there is no accountability from the ministerial committee on government communication which makes the spending decisions.

But Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz, who heads up that committee says the spending is on legitimate information campaigns and on important public policies, like tax.

And Senator Abetz says the committee abides by guidelines established by the previous Labor government.

..as to the memory struggling, where oh where is Peter whatshisname, the shaven-headed Post-Green Post -Modern post-Midnight Oil crooner (well, grunter, really)..?
Having sublime sex with another praying mantis, perhaps..?
Living in sin in Byron Bay with Mark Latham, writing a book on Pancreitus and depilitory creams..?
Or just keeping a low profile in the wake of this weeks final verdict on Labour's defeat which shows that blue-collar battlers deserted the party in droves thanks to the perception, right or wrong, that Labour was in thrall to multiculturalists, inner-city elites and green zealots?

... He's wondering just how he came to make such a monumental miscalculation: Three whole years & no Mark as protector! Three whole years of hostility from those trade union nasties! Three whole years to survive & somehow to save face! Three whole years of being irrelevant. Ah, poor Peter, my heart goes out to him! It looked such a good deal & turned out to be a bloody nightmare!

Last Update: Saturday, July 9, 2005. 12:40pm (AEST)

Unions says workers may pull mass 'sickies' to protest IR changes

The union movement is warning the Howard Government it will consider every form of protest to protect its workers rights, and that could include employees taking sick days enmasse.

Dozens of workers on the CTA building site in central Perth called in sick yesterday.

The CTA site is controlled by contractor John Holland, whose company has a Western Australia Supreme Court injunction barring the workers union from wildcat strikes.

Unions WA secretary Dave Robinson says he does not know whether the workers were genuinely sick, but says workers will always find a way to protect their rights.

"In the current environment when their rights at work are under attack in such a significant way, it is inevitable that workers will feel very strongly that they are not going to feel oppressed and they will not lay down and die," he said.

"They will take action and quite frankly, that is to be applauded.

"I think it clearly highlights that employers should really think twice about going to the court and using the courts to prevent action rather than negotiating an outcome - in the end it doesn't work."

Mr Robinson says if the Federal Government's proposed industrial changes proceed, workers cannot be blamed for taking drastic action.

"We hope we're not pressed into acting against whatever laws Howard brings in, but if they're unjust and unfair to working people, that's what we might be driven to," he said.

"So we will consider every form of action and a lot of that I can tell you now will be quite creative."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1410589.htm

Jobs safe, say coalition ads
By Mark Metherell Political Correspondent
July 9, 2005/SMH


Fair go … Mr Hawke yesterday.
Photo: James Davies

The Federal Government has asserted that its plan to reduce coverage of unfair dismissal laws will "protect workers", in a national advertising campaign launched today.

The newspaper advertisements aimed at countering the Actus media campaign against the changes take on a central criticism of the unions, stating that workers "will continue to be protected from unlawful termination".

The ACTU has said the loosening of unfair dismissal laws will remove protections against unfair sackings from 3.6 million workers... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jobs-safe-say-coalition-ads/2005/07/08/1120704564694.html

So, if things are to remain pretty much the same as they always were, why the need for "reforms"? Why not leave things as they are? We've hardly experienced "union militancy" in years. The economy, as the Libs have kept telling us, has been just wonderful! And why wait for a Senate majority to bring on the changes, too? If anything, these "reforms" will bring about more trouble & strife than we've seen for years. A real boost to the unions the Libs want to destroy! Do they think we're all stupid, or what?

Business shores up Howard reforms
By Kerry-Anne Walsh, political correspondent
July 10, 2005
The Sun-Herald

Strikes by unions had already cost the economy $200 million but would not deter business from supporting the Federal Government's industrial reforms, a leading employer body said.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive Peter Hendy said he estimated $200 million was lost because of industrial action across Australia.

If unions followed through on their pledge to wage a year-long campaign, the cost to the economy would be enormous, he warned.

But employers were prepared to stand up to the industrial action, drawing up battlelines for a protracted fight with the unions.

"Employers will not be intimidated into withdrawing their support for industrial reform by these tactics," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/business-shores-up-howard-reforms/2005/07/09/1120704596919.html

OK, so what's in it for employers that they're not telling us about, hmm? I mean, they're not supporting John Howard just to be nice, are they?

Stay out of IR row, churches told
Matt Price
July 09, 2005/the Australian

WORKPLACE Relations Minister Kevin Andrews has urged church leaders to butt out of debate on the Government's industrial relations changes until they know the facts. .. <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15869334%255E2702,00.html

...and this is very rude & patronizing, coming as it does from a deeply religious person such as our Mr Andrews. Is he suggesting that Oz church leaders might be silly, misinformed & gullible enough to be taken in by a "scare campaign" by those terrible trade union leaders? :wink:

.... Looks like even Cardinal Pell may have gotten things wrong!

After countless examples of silly, misinformed & gullible church leaders comments, what else should we expect?
This is rather like hearing about two dinosaurs, sinking into the ooze of history, desperately waving their tails as the water level gets higher and shouting ""I'm STILL HERE!, I'm STILL HERE!""
After all, just what proportion of Australians attend a church any more?
And what proportion of Australians belong to a Trade Union, now?
The growth figures for both organisations are in free fall.

No, no, no, Mirriwinni!
Just this ONCE I think the church leaders might have just gotten it right! It's their job to look after the poor, exploited & down-trodden, of the earth, yes? Well, hey, that's what they've actually tried to do by <gulp> getting involved in political debate! I think the ACTU is perfectly correct for thanking them for doing so. And, you have to admit, this is SO much more useful than telling ordinary folk that birth control is evil!

Granted, a much smaller proportion of workers than used to. And for good reason, too. Trade unions have not been able to come up with useful strategies for their members on so many recent important issues: globalization, contract work, erosion of conditions & pay, etc, etc ... It is almost as though they forgot how to function properly during the "Accord" era, then were totally gobsmacked by the Liberals' excesses at federal level & also the state level, in some cases. (I speak to you as a survivor of "the Kennett experiment"! ) If they don't respond strongly to this, ultimate challenge to their legitimacy in the 21st century, well, they WILL be completely irrelevant! I happen to think that workers still need effective support, so I certainly hope the anti-IR campaign is a success.

In case you're interested, here's the Lib's website "for more information" (on the wonders of the propose IR "reforms :wink: ) that appears at the bottom of the full-page newspaper ads. in yesterday & today's newspapers. Your taxes at work.

http://www.workplace.gov.au/ourplan

I agree with your view on unions msolga. During the Accord years it was as if they were engineering their own irrelevancy and when you think about it, that isn't a bad thing. Let me explain before the roof caves in

Any organisation has to have a reason to exist. Business organisations exist to make money for their shareholders so they will keep existing provided they are able. A business organisation in normal circumstances wouldn't deliberately engineer its own disappearance as greed must be satisfied. On the other hands unions exist to protect workers from the predations of employers. Given that since Australia has had an industrial relations system heavy on law and order since 1904 the role of the unions has always been somewhat marginal. They are probably more important in an IR environment where nature is red in tooth and claw. So during the Accord years when we saw a close relationship between the ACTU and the Fed Govt many workers might have thought all was sweetness and light and they could save a few bucks a fortnight by baling out of the union. I mean wage rises were indexed in awards and IR in Australia was co-operative rather than exploitative.

Howard hasn't been able to force his ideology on Australia due to not having control of the Senate. Now he will be able to indulge all his IR fantasies by ramming through changes to the laws so that Australia resembles his fantasy - the US - in its IR aspects.

A union shouldn't exist to provide jobs for ALP members who want to work before getting a Parliamentary sinecure. Unions shouldn't exist to turn into monolithic bureaucracies. They should exist only to better the wellbeing of their members. Given the social aims of unions they should theoretically be working to abolish themselves by helping to create a society where there is no exploitation and cooperation between capital and labour is the byword.....

And no way is that going to happen. Capitalism is driven by greed and greed will cause exploitation. Business knows no ethic other than self-interest. Employers will do whatever they can to maximise profit for shareholders and therefore bonuses and huge salaries for CEOs, Directors, management and the rest. This Government is setting the IR system up to allow capital to exploit labour in a manner remiscent of the 1890s. Unions better start hitting the gym, they're going to need to be well and truly buffed up. And the ex-members will come flooding back as soon as they realise what Howard has in store.

I'm in total agreement with all you've said, goodfielder. On the same wavelength here.

This statement hits a particularly raw nerve:


Many, many times I've seen "leaders" of unions (including state education unions that I've belonged to) serve the interests of the Labor Party before those of their own members, for their own interests. Cynical, self-serving & WRONG! To me it's perfectly clear: The union movement serves it's members, even if in doing so, it has to take on the Labor Party. I have seen so many union members give up in disgust & despair when their "leaders" fail to take issue with a Labor government when it should. I've always seen this as a form of self-serving corruption by the union or particular unionists involved.

Yes! Absolutely. And as you suggest, the unions had better be up to the task! So much is at stake.

Last Update: Monday, July 11, 2005. 10:00pm (AEST)

Mr Howard says like New Zealanders, Australians will grow to like the changes. [File photo] (ABC TV)

Howard outlines economic need for IR changes

Prime Minister John Howard has used an address to the Sydney Institute to argue what he calls the "economic case" for industrial relations (IR) reform.

Mr Howard says without the changes, Australia will continue to lag behind the United States, China and India in terms of productivity.

He has also defended the Government's record, saying the 1996 changes to industrial relations made it easier for employers to introduce family-friendly practices and resulted in real wage increases.

Mr Howard used the example of New Zealand to back his claim that Australians will welcome the Government's new proposals.

"While 85 per cent of people [in New Zealand] originally opposed labour market reform, 18 months after the changes 73 per cent of employees were either very satisfied or satisfied with their working conditions and terms of employment," he said.

That's the best case he can put forward? Maybe the 73% of the NZ employees who didn't migrate to Oz were happy (?), who knows, but lots left, obviously quite unsatisfied!

So what he means is he wants to reduce our working conditions to those in the US, China and India. I wonder if those who voted for the Libs knew this one was coming?