The official IR reform thread! (4 Viewers)

[Rafy]

See beazley's latest stunt?
"The last ever weekend barbeque"

wtf, now his claims are just getting crazy, the world isnt going to fall apart with these reforms. Weekend BBQs will continue, life will go on like it always did.....in a years time people will wonder what the fuss was (Remember the fuss with the GST?) Its obvious that microeconomic reforms such as this are needed. You cant satisfy everybody in an reform of anything, so labors call for howard to say nobody will be worse off is just a cheap stunt. Labor would dare not make a claim such as that either! In the end though the country will be better off for these reforms.

Labor and the unions are just loosing credibility in my eyes with all these radical claims. (One even said that Life expectancy would fall! )
I also doubt they would roll back the reforms if elected, they know they are good, they are merely succumbing to union influence.


On a more superficial note, those badges labor MPs wear in parliament.....i have no comment.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

I couldn't read them, what do they say?

 

[Generator]

See beazley's latest stunt?
"The last ever weekend barbeque"

wtf, now his claims are just getting crazy, the world isnt going to fall apart with these reforms. Weekend BBQs will continue, life will go on like it always did.....in a years time people will wonder what the fuss was (Remember the fuss with the GST?) Its obvious that microeconomic reforms such as this are needed. You cant satisfy everybody in an reform of anything, so labors call for howard to say nobody will be worse off is just a cheap stunt. Labor would dare not make a claim such as that either! In the end though the country will be better off for these reforms.

Labor and the unions are just loosing credibility in my eyes with all these radical claims. (One even said that Life expectancy would fall! )
I also doubt they would roll back the reforms if elected, they know they are good, they are merely succumbing to union influence.

Labor and the unions are aware of the fact that impinging upon the rights of the workers in favour of the employers is a necessary requirement inorder to ensure that economic growth continues and they are likely to let the supposed reforms stand if they gain office? Rightio, chap!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Labor and the unions are aware of the fact that impinging upon the rights of the workers in favour of the employers is a necessary requirement inorder to ensure that economic growth continues and they are likely to let the supposed reforms stand if they gain office? Rightio, chap!

Oh come on Generator, you know that them claiming they'll rip the laws to shreads is a weak point anyway. What's the chance of them having the power to do so? I do believe they have genuine opposition to the laws, but the truth is they will learn to work with them, and unless there is some catastrophic backlash against these laws they will become deeply rooted.

 

[Generator]

For a social-democratic party, it's not a weak point, NTB. I can see a future Labor Government keeping a national system and not caving in to union demands to 'outlaw' the AWAs, but I doubt that they will let those parts of the package that strip back the gains of the past with no apparent tangible benefit for the workers stand.

Nobody is denying that there's a need for reform and to create a better balance between the workers and the employers (and small business and contractors, for that matter), but creating a system that allows for the rights that were gained through years of struggle to be traded away with no appropriate compensation (that that the current no disadvantage test provides for) isn't the answer.

Edit: Personally, I would prefer that the gains of the past not be traded away in any capacity, but given the nature of our society (spend, spend, spend), it's only 'fair' that such an option exists for those who request it.

 

[Generator]

ACTU predicts work law protest will be biggest ever

Business warns on IR protest

---

State ministers to front Senate's IR inquiry

 

[Generator]

Inquiry into the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005

 

[frog12986]

Rhetoric, scaremongering and a little bit more rhetoric... the sheer basis of the ALP's campaign against the IR reforms...

- Rollback.. "There's only one good thing you can do with that Bill - and that's bin it. When we're elected to office that's exactly what we'll do"
- Aimed at competing with China and India..pull the other one
- No shift Allowances
- Weekends will disappear
- Unfriendly hours
- Erosion of Australian values
- Low wages
- Low Skill
- False choices or No workchoices
- Loss of rights in their entirety
- Extreme
.... etc etc


Let's cast our minds back and make a comparison here; Mr Beazely yet again. The infamous GST debate :

- The only winners from the GST will be big business and high-income earners
- It's a complex, difficult to administer tax, which is going to send a lot of people in small business to the wall
- the Labor Party opposes the GST, and in government we will roll it back
- GST is not good for the economy
- GST will cost our country so much in lost opportunities
- John Howard...will lift the rate higher than ten percent
- Real wages will decline..
..etc etc

Sounds very familiar does it not? It is all unsubstatiated speculation; an ideological opposition based upon the erosion of popularity for the 'workers party'. The only true indicator of its impacts, successes and failures, will be the outcomes a number of years after its implementation and no amounts of 'modelling' or flippant rhetoric' will prove otherwise..

 

[erawamai]

Rhetoric, scaremongering and a little bit more rhetoric... the sheer basis of the ALP's campaign against the IR reforms...

.

I think it would be extremely rich, looking at your posts in this forum, to accuse the ALP of rhetoric and scare mongering when you are well versed in Liberal party rhetoric yourself. Even more so when the Liberal party seems to be very good at scare mongering when it comes to ever so dangerous terrorist threat boat people pose and misleading the people with people overboard (just a reminder that the intelligence report of what happened was on Howards desk (well he was on the reading list) the morning he argued that people who throw their children overboard should not be let into Australia)...

Rhetoric and scaremogering is a part of politics. You cannot be so single minded so as to think accusing the other side of misleading scaremongering is going to score big political points when your own sides does it on a regular basis.

 

[erawamai]

- The only winners from the GST will be big business and high-income earners

Well yes that's the point of the GST. IF you knew your liberal party rhetoric big business and the wealthy are those who keep the economy going. the GST does not penalise you for earning more. It's penalises you for consuming more.

A GST should mean income tax cuts for the top tax bracket so people are encouraged to work harder and make more money. These income tax cuts for the rich came this year as promised.

The GST is just another way to collect tax. More GST lower income taxes. Less GST more income tax.

- It's a complex, difficult to administer tax, which is going to send a lot of people in small business to the wall

Most of the accountants I know have found the GST rather complex.

will lift the rate higher than ten percent

John Howard would love to do that...it would give him the opportunity to further decrease income tax. However increasing a tax would be politically unpopular.

 

[Rafy]

I agree with all that you have said frog.
Too add, Labor and beazley are playing a dangerous game here and their credibility is on the line. The reforms will be implemented, there is no doubt of that. Now the true impacts of the reform will reveal themselves in practice. However, if the world dosent end after the reforms are in place (which it wont), Labor is going to have alot of egg on its face.

By the time of the next election i suspect that much of this debate will be a mere afterthought amongst the common people, and life will continue as it always did...



Regarding the GST, it was about securing the government's revenues into the future. With our ageing population and diminishing tax base, the idea is to move from direct (Income) Taxes to indirect taxes...

 

[frog12986]

I think it would be extremely rich, looking at your posts in this forum, to accuse the ALP of rhetoric and scare mongering when you are well versed in Liberal party rhetoric yourself. Even more so when the Liberal party seems to be very good at scare mongering when it comes to ever so dangerous terrorist threat boat people pose and misleading the people with people overboard (just a reminder that the intelligence report of what happened was on Howards desk (well he was on the reading list) the morning he argued that people who throw their children overboard should not be let into Australia)...

Rhetoric and scaremogering is a part of politics. You cannot be so single minded so as to think accusing the other side of misleading scaremongering is going to score big political points when your own sides does it on a regular basis.

Read the entire post. My point was not that scaremongering and rhetoric should not be part of politics, that is absurd. Rather the substatiation of the ALP's argument is based soley on these points, and can be likened to the previous debate on the GST. It was a point against the ALP's entire campaign, not the mere use of rhetoric in itself..

 

[walrusbear]

Rhetoric, scaremongering and a little bit more rhetoric... the sheer basis of the ALP's campaign against the IR reforms...

- Rollback.. "There's only one good thing you can do with that Bill - and that's bin it. When we're elected to office that's exactly what we'll do"
- Aimed at competing with China and India..pull the other one
- No shift Allowances
- Weekends will disappear
- Unfriendly hours
- Erosion of Australian values
- Low wages
- Low Skill
- False choices or No workchoices
- Loss of rights in their entirety
- Extreme
.... etc etc


Let's cast our minds back and make a comparison here; Mr Beazely yet again. The infamous GST debate :

- The only winners from the GST will be big business and high-income earners
- It's a complex, difficult to administer tax, which is going to send a lot of people in small business to the wall
- the Labor Party opposes the GST, and in government we will roll it back
- GST is not good for the economy
- GST will cost our country so much in lost opportunities
- John Howard...will lift the rate higher than ten percent
- Real wages will decline..
..etc etc

Sounds very familiar does it not? It is all unsubstatiated speculation; an ideological opposition based upon the erosion of popularity for the 'workers party'. The only true indicator of its impacts, successes and failures, will be the outcomes a number of years after its implementation and no amounts of 'modelling' or flippant rhetoric' will prove otherwise..

yeah and of course the reform itself is totally above such ideology and rhetoric

 

[erawamai]

Read the entire post. My point was not that scaremongering and rhetoric should not be part of politics, that is absurd. Rather the substatiation of the ALP's argument is based soley on these points, and can be likened to the previous debate on the GST. It was a point against the ALP's entire campaign, not the mere use of rhetoric in itself..

...um so if scaremongering isnt such a bad thing what are you complaining about? That the ALP POV is totally based on rhetoric? You honestly believe that much of the Liberal party campaign is not based on rhetoric?

Certainly by linking the current ALP POV with the GST scaremongering you are attempting to draw negative implications about scaremongering itself. Which kinda contradicts your point about scaremongering being a part of politics. By knocking the ALP past and present scaremongering you are contradicting yourself.

 

[frog12986]

Well yes that's the point of the GST. IF you knew your liberal party rhetoric big business and the wealthy are those who keep the economy going. the GST does not penalise you for earning more. It's penalises you for consuming more.

A GST should mean income tax cuts for the top tax bracket so people are encouraged to work harder and make more money. These income tax cuts for the rich came this year as promised.

The GST is just another way to collect tax. More GST lower income taxes. Less GST more income tax.


Most of the accountants I know have found the GST rather complex.


John Howard would love to do that...it would give him the opportunity to further decrease income tax. However increasing a tax would be politically unpopular.

Yes, lower income taxes..wouldn't it be fair to assume, that should the lowest income earners in society have a lesser burden placed upon their gross income, that their consumer and expenditure patterns would dictate their overall level of tax..

Beazely made the claim that Howard 'will' increase the rate. Has he done that yet? I think not. Actually, a 15-20% GST with lower overall income tax rates would be a much fairer method of tax collection as it then resides with the earner as to how and what their money should be spent on...

This entire rich/poor, class conflict is outdated and redundant. Why shouldn't those who work extremely hard receive substantial reward for what they have done. There will always be a very small portion of the population who inherit businss and wealth, however this should not deter other individuals from pursuing a similar goal. This whole notion that we should in some way heavily penalise individuals for earning more money and another individual is just absurd... yes re-allocation is necessary to some factions of the community, but an income tax rate of close to 50% on any income is ridiculous.

Small Business has not hit the wall, in fact the economy is growing, small business is growing and prosperity is being unequivocally derived..

Besides, the point again was not about these factors related to the GST which predicted Australia and the Australian economy to fall into a black hole, but rather the similarities in the attitudes of the ALP and the inadequacy of their speculation...

 

[frog12986]

Results of implementation are the only viable way in which the success, outcomes and failures will be identified...by both parties..

 

[Generator]

The States present their case -

IR Senate inquiry begins
State IR Ministers attack IR changes in Senate inquiry

---

Unions prepare for national day of action

 

[Generator]

Della Bosca likens IR changes to fascism

Police want out of IR laws

---

Rallies to measure strength of IR concerns

Angry nation takes to the streets

Public servants warned off mass workers' rally

IR law protesters face fines, sack

Work laws rally to clog city streets
Heh, it's nice of the article to immediately treat the strike as though it's not in the best interests of all. No matter what the future may hold, we cannot let the general 'public' be inconvenienced (no matter how minor the inconvenience truly is), even for just a mere day!

I do realise that the point of a strike is essentially to inconvenience another entity or two (or many) so that a point may be publicly expressed, but I don't see much point in being overly negative from the word go, and that negativity was more than clearly expressed by claiming that the public will be 'inconvenienced' by the actions of unionists, churchgoers and community activists (all terms that carry negative connotations, if not to the same degree). Of course, I do realise that some/many of you reading this will disagree with this particular point of view, but at the moment that's not my concern.

---

Labor's way to seize the day

How to make the best of a bad lot of law

James McConvill: The left-wing case for ending workplace law
Long live the market.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Della Bosca likens IR changes to fascism

I think someone needs to brush up on their political definitions :/

 

[walrusbear]

Heh, it's nice of the article to immediately treat the strike as though it's not in the best interests of all. No matter what the future may hold, we cannot let the general 'public' be inconvenienced (no matter how minor the inconvenience truly is), even for just a mere day!

I do realise that the point of a strike is essentially to inconvenience another entity or two (or many) so that a point may be publicly expressed, but I don't see much point in being overly negative from the word go, and that negativity was more than clearly expressed by claiming that the public will be 'inconvenienced' by the actions of unionists, churchgoers and community activists (all terms that carry negative connotations, if not to the same degree). Of course, I do realise that some/many of you reading this will disagree with this particular point of view, but at the moment that's not my concern.

kind of reminds me of the media treatment of anti-VSU rallies