The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[walrusbear]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/god-to-help-set-wages-says-harper/2005/10/29/1130400395756.html

 

[Generator]

R laws to go to parliament on Wednesday

It's 700 pages long and has so far cost $55 million in advertising, and on Wednesday the federal government's industrial relations shake-up will finally be presented to parliament.

The coalition party room formally endorsed the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill at its meeting on Tuesday morning, five months after Prime Minister John Howard first outlined the changes in parliament.

[continued - see link]

I like how the Government is forever ignoring the fact that the no disadvantage test is to have no place in the new regime. Sure, criticise the Opposition's (well, the ACTU's) attacks, but don't do so on the basis of current AWAs that are in some way an adequate alternative to an award.

 

[walrusbear]

R laws to go to parliament on Wednesday



I like how the Government is forever ignoring the fact that the no disadvantage test is to have no place in the new regime. Sure, criticise the Opposition's (well, the ACTU's) attacks, but don't do so on the basis of current AWAs that are in some way an adequate alternative to an award.

i don't know how anyone could not be extremely annoyed at what's happening.
would any howard supporters like to back up his actions?

 

[Generator]

i don't know how anyone could not be extremely annoyed at what's happening.
would any howard supporters like to back up his actions?

Well, though I may not be a fan of the Liberals, I haven't made a proper comment for some time, so without further ado...


The cabinet has over-extended itself this time. Arguably, there's more than enough justification to force through a single IR system at the Federal level, but to do so in a manner that radically alters the IR landscape in the process? Wouldn't it make more sense to coordinate with the states in a constructive manner so that a unitary system may emerge, or even to force through the current federal system (the latter being the option proposed by the Democrats, I know), and then argue for further neoliberal reform? I just wish that they would actually consider the two issues (aunitary system and reform) to be separate, because quite frankly the take ir or leave it approach is hardly going to allow what may well be the better parts of this package to gain the support that they deserve if they are lumped in with those parts that many, such as myself, consider to be misguided.

Now most people may actually realise how important the Senate as an actual house of review truly is. Without a moderate minor party such as the Dems holding the balance of power, it's as though incremental reform, something that the Howard Governments since 1996 appear to have cherished, is now nothing more than a pipedream. I know that I'm not the first person to say this, but I for one believe that the loss of a moderating voice is troubling the Government as much the other parties - now they only have themselves to blame should a piece of legislation fall on its face or prove to be more than just unpopular.

 

[Generator]

"Take it or leave" - WorkChoices, working for you.

PM enshrines five golden work rules

 

[walrusbear]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-for-five-years/2005/11/01/1130823210670.html

 

[Liberal Scum]

Well, though I may not be a fan of the Liberals, I haven't made a proper comment for some time, so without further ado...


The cabinet has over-extended itself this time. Arguably, there's more than enough justification to force through a single IR system at the Federal level, but to do so in a manner that radically alters the IR landscape in the process? Wouldn't it make more sense to coordinate with the states in a constructive manner so that a unitary system may emerge, or even to force through the current federal system (the latter being the option proposed by the Democrats, I know), and then argue for further neoliberal reform? I just wish that they would actually consider the two issues (aunitary system and reform) to be separate, because quite frankly the take ir or leave it approach is hardly going to allow what may well be the better parts of this package to gain the support that they deserve if they are lumped in with those parts that many, such as myself, consider to be misguided.

Now most people may actually realise how important the Senate as an actual house of review truly is. Without a moderate minor party such as the Dems holding the balance of power, it's as though incremental reform, something that the Howard Governments since 1996 appear to have cherished, is now nothing more than a pipedream. I know that I'm not the first person to say this, but I for one believe that the loss of a moderating voice is troubling the Government as much the other parties - now they only have themselves to blame should a piece of legislation fall on its face or prove to be more than just unpopular.

You wouldn't consider the commies from the bush to be moderating voices?

 

[erawamai]

Now most people may actually realise how important the Senate as an actual house of review truly is. Without a moderate minor party such as the Dems holding the balance of power, it's as though incremental reform, something that the Howard Governments since 1996 appear to have cherished, is now nothing more than a pipedream. I know that I'm not the first person to say this, but I for one believe that the loss of a moderating voice is troubling the Government as much the other parties - now they only have themselves to blame should a piece of legislation fall on its face or prove to be more than just unpopular.

I think you might be overestimating the interest of the general population in democracy and the senate. The great majority of Australian people have no idea what the big white ballot paper does.

But yes. The government having control of the senate is troubling them just a tiny bit. Nothing really serious, nothing that would stop the implementation of their workplace changes.

 

[Generator]

You wouldn't consider the commies from the bush to be moderating voices?

Conservative, agrarian socialists who happen to be a part of the Coalition (even if it's fracturing)? No .

I think you might be overestimating the interest of the general population in democracy and the senate. The great majority of Australian people have no idea what the big white ballot paper does.

But yes. The government having control of the senate is troubling them just a tiny bit. Nothing really serious, nothing that would stop the implementation of their workplace changes.

I'd like to think that people will take an interest in the future, and/or that the opposition and the minor parties will do all that they can to educate the masses. Still, that's hoping for a great deal.

 

[lizzybizzystar]

communism. ..*sigh*
i get kicked out of the house if i say that i think it is a good idea (IN THEORY I SAY). .. my grandma is all like, 'you live through a war, then tell me. ..'

but the new IR things suck. ima get ripped off i can tell

 

[Liberal Scum]

communism. ..*sigh*
i get kicked out of the house if i say that i think it is a good idea (IN THEORY I SAY). .. my grandma is all like, 'you live through a war, then tell me. ..'

but the new IR things suck. ima get ripped off i can tell

It doesn't even work in theory.

 

[lizzybizzystar]

It doesn't even work in theory.

this has been the cause of many cold nights outside. but no friggin' way am i voting for JOHN HOWARD.
theory being only to work if people weren't so selfish. but that is cancelled out, cause selifishness is human nature.

 

[Generator]

So far, three Labor MPS have been removed from the House (it's question time, for those who do not know).

Edit: It's up to 4 (unless another MP was removed as I was grabbing something from the kitchen as Costello was responding to a 'question without notice' regarding the economic benefits of the IR reform agenda (and alternative policies, of course)).

Edit 2: It's now 5. Given the way in which he appears to be reacting to each question, it seems as though Howard is starting to feel the strain, too. Andrews has largely been ignored by the Opposition.

Edit 3: As of this moment, 11 have been removed, including a few frontbenchers.

 

[Generator]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1495829.htm

No doubt there'll be more about this later tonight on PM and The 7.30 Report.

Edit: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-ir-bill-tabled/2005/11/02/1130823257420.html

 

[leetom]

Well, though I may not be a fan of the Liberals, I haven't made a proper comment for some time, so without further ado...


The cabinet has over-extended itself this time. Arguably, there's more than enough justification to force through a single IR system at the Federal level, but to do so in a manner that radically alters the IR landscape in the process? Wouldn't it make more sense to coordinate with the states in a constructive manner so that a unitary system may emerge, or even to force through the current federal system (the latter being the option proposed by the Democrats, I know), and then argue for further neoliberal reform? I just wish that they would actually consider the two issues (aunitary system and reform) to be separate, because quite frankly the take ir or leave it approach is hardly going to allow what may well be the better parts of this package to gain the support that they deserve if they are lumped in with those parts that many, such as myself, consider to be misguided.

It's not in the Government's interest to bother to distinguish between a supposed need for a federal, centralised system and neoliberal reform. By meshing the argument for a federally administered system together with the liberal ideological components, it makes the whole thing an easier sell than just arguing for neoliberal reform as they then have something valid to add to their general argument.

I'm sure Labor wouldn't be too terribly opposed to the idea of a federal system alone, just not one governed by the Liberals : ).

 

[Liberal Scum]

this has been the cause of many cold nights outside. but no friggin' way am i voting for JOHN HOWARD.
theory being only to work if people weren't so selfish. but that is cancelled out, cause selifishness is human nature.

No, it wouldn't work because:
- Central planning will never have the ability to innovate and understand the needs of individuals the way the market can.
- A society where everyone is employed by the state could never have free speech.
- When power is concentrated it is more easily corruptable.
etc

And add onto that your reasons for lack of incentive when taxes are through the roof and you've got the antithesis of a perfect society.



This morning I heard what sounded like a NSW government funded advertisement against IR. Now weren't the ALP bitching about the Federal govt wasting taxpayer's money on political ads?

 

[Generator]

It's not in the Government's interest to bother to distinguish between a supposed need for a federal, centralised system and neoliberal reform. By meshing the argument for a federally administered system together with the liberal ideological components, it makes the whole thing an easier sell than just arguing for neoliberal reform as they then have something valid to add to their general argument.

Though that makes some sense, I don't agree (as outlined in the post that you quoted (in part)).

 

[leetom]

This morning I heard what sounded like a NSW government funded advertisement against IR. Now weren't the ALP bitching about the Federal govt wasting taxpayer's money on political ads?

Pretty early to jump to that conclusion. Was probably ACTU. Even if it was State Government, you can be sure the NSW ALP is not spending forty million plus.

 

[Liberal Scum]

Pretty early to jump to that conclusion. Was probably ACTU. Even if it was State Government, you can be sure the NSW ALP is not spending forty million plus.

At the end it said it was authorised by the NSW government.

 

[walrusbear]

No, it wouldn't work because:
- Central planning will never have the ability to innovate and understand the needs of individuals the way the market can.
- A society where everyone is employed by the state could never have free speech.
- When power is concentrated it is more easily corruptable.
etc

And add onto that your reasons for lack of incentive when taxes are through the roof and you've got the antithesis of a perfect society.

and of course a freemarket is incorruptable; allowing for freedom of speech and understands individuals