I don’t see the scrutiny of Therese Rein’s business as selective or unwarranted at all.
The fact of the matter is, the alternative Prime Minister’s wife is running a company which has benefited from employment policies that differ dramatically from the ALP’s own policies. Whether the corporate entity in question was recently acquired by, a subsidiary of or not directly controlled under the structure of Rein’s own authority is immaterial. She was still profitting from its operations.
The questions have to be asked (a) Why is it acceptable/ good business practice for Rein to negotiate individual contracts when its not for other employers (b) How can a company that is worth $148 million be compared to ‘small business’ (c) how is it that Rudd’s own wife can be running a labour hire company that’s very nature undoubtedly would not be popular with the unions while Rudd is leader of the ALP.
What Australians have yet to wake up to is the fact that Rudd is about as ‘left’ as Costello. He doesn’t believe in militant unions. His wife certainly hasn’t shown much faith in ALP employment policy. The Rudd’s are loaded by virtue of the governments policies over the last decade. The problem for Australia is that if Rudd gets in, he won’t be running the country- no two ways about it

Hey wre

You say that if Rudd gets in, he won’t be running the country. Can you let us all in on it? Who will? And if you can spare the time to give us some evidence that would be most helpful too.

Frank
Anybody with a little nouse knows that the unions will be running the country if the ALP forms government under Rudd (or any other leader for that matter).
Evidence? Just for staters:

(a) a leopard doesn’t change its spots-the ALP has been founded, funded and directed according to unionist agendas since forever;
(b) funding for the ALP campaign coming from the unions represents a larger percentage than that from any other group;
(c) since Rudd gave the ALP hope, preselections throughout the country have been dominated by the union movement, especially in Victoria. Outside of Victoria, Combet has been ‘given’ a plum electorate even though he has never lived or worked there before. The incumbent has been kicked out. Unfair dismissal perhaps? (there’s an irony);
(d) everytime Rudd and Gillard even try to take a concilatory approach with small business/ big business/ the chamber of commerce etc, the unions brand them as ‘sell outs’. There is not even a hint of compromise. If Prime Minister, how is Rudd going to rein in the militant unions and prevent industrial action/ strikes (which are at the lowest levels ever). Blokes like Mighell are not an exception to the rule- they are the rule; and
(e) Crean, Macklin et al (joined by Combet et al) owe plenty of people favours-most of them influential unionists. Do you really expect Rudd to be capable of bottling up all those expectations? If you do you’re in dream land.

I could go on but the answers are all obvious. Unfortunately, I think australians are so keen to see Howard off that they have forgotten to think about just how bad the alternative could be

But wre, you just said that:

"What Australians have yet to wake up to is the fact that Rudd is about as ‘left’ as Costello. He doesn’t believe in militant unions."

If that's the case, how is it logical to say the militant unions will run the place under Rudd?

yes, wre, quite right, dee's as bad as dum.

but for really dumb- the people who go on voting for pollies year after bloody year and are surprised when they are ruled by politicians, not by good managers, not by good planners, certainly not by their favorite uncle- just politicians.

it's the system, people. you want a better result, you need a better system.

wre
So the unions will run Australia because the ALP is controlled and funded by the unions? Actually the evidence is that the ALP’s largest income comes from John Curtin House (ALP's Canberra building) earning 7 times that of the donation by any union. Funds from other sources including businesses (23% in 2000/01) match the unions’ contribution.

Your implication that funding means control prompted me to look at how the Liberals are funded. For the last election, the biggest individual donation ($1m) came from a foreign businessman, Lord Ashcroft, whose overseas tax dealings are controversial to say the least. Why would he donate that much to the Libs in Australia?

Large private donations are hardly given to political parties to advance the quality of Australian democracy. They come either to buy access and favours or to reward policies that advantage them.

Major donors to the Libs include five ‘front’ organisations controlled by the Party:
• the Cormack Foundation ($1.8m) directed by Hugh Morgan, businessman and Howard-appointee member of the Reserve Bank; and John Calvert-Jones, Liberal Party Treasurer and brother-in-law of Rupert Murdoch;
• Greenfields Foundation (an interest-free ‘loan’ of $4.6m);
• Free Enterprise Foundation ($.891m);
• Menzies Research Centre ($30,179 in 2004/5 but $.327m since 1998/9); and
• The 500 Club (not so much a ‘front’ as a direct fund-raiser).

In addition to that, Electoral Commission figures show that big businesses and right-wing groups (such as Exclusive Brethren) donate handsomely to Liberal coffers.

So using your logic that he who pay the piper calls the tune, we can conclude that if Howard is re-elected we can expect the interests of big business to dominate such policy areas as climate change, taxation and corporations law.

Recently Howard changed the law on political donations: you can now donate up to $10300 (previously $1500) without public disclosure. This change favours big donors who can now give up to $10299 in each of nine separate cheques made out to separate federal, state and territory divisions of the same political party without public scrutiny.

Money buys access to power whichever party forms government.