What mythical world do these people live in. Mike the people who have the power to take advantage of a flexible system already do. The majority of workers will be forced to except worse condition then they currently enjoy. You need to get out of your office a bit more and talk to real people you those people who left school at 17 and have only even had semi skilled jobs, non working wife two or three kids. Australia families will be worst off and the lower class's will swell with working poor. US min wage $5.15 two weeks leave here we come. The Howard gov should do the right thing and take this to the next election as they didn't tell the people what their plans where at the last election.

I don't understand how it can mean higher wages AND allow industries such as manufacturing to compete with China.....isn't that a contradiction in terms? Isn't the very reason they CAN'T compete with China the fact that we (Australians) don't want to live on a bowl of rice and a rotten fish a day, sleeping in a crawl-hole with fifteen relatives?

I think you make the point very clearly when you say that the current system is about distribution of wealth (so everyone is looked after to a certain degree) rather than wealth creation (for those lucky enough to be born at the top of the tree).
Surely you can't be thinking this means wealth creation for all? And if so - how? Not the old chestnut of a trickle down effect we all know doesn't work...?

I think, regardless how big or small the changes, it shall remain to be seen how radical the fallout is...whether it means the best and brightest employees are advantaged or there's a lot more of who-you-know-not-what-you-know to get (or keep) a job, no matter how bad you are at it.

It's certainly going to be an interesting year ahead....

All the criticism of the IR reforms has been based on one totally false assumption. That is, that an employer who may be tempted to shaft his employees faces minimal cost in replacing staff who opt to "leave it" rather than "take it".

As a former Vice President of the Recruitment and Consulting Services Association (Qld) I can confirm that the average cost of replacing an employee is $4,000 to $6,000. This cost comes as either a fee for an agency's time, the cost of the HR people's time, or the actual time the employer spends away from his normal productive duties to complete the recruiting task.

This cost of replacement can amount to 15 to 20% of annual wages and is not a cost that any sensible employer would like to incur if they can help it. This cost does not include the value of the lower productivity of people in the last weeks before leaving and the first few months while the new employee is getting up to speed.

These combined costs are the primary driver of the need to retain staff for as long as possible. Incur it twice in one year, over and above the normal on-costs like annual leave etc, and they have a serious cost blow-out. It goes to the very core of the staff management function. And it is also the reason why some under-performing staff are retained for a lot longer than their performance might justify.

So all these scare stories that assume that employers are all salivating for the opportunity to put the squeeze on their own team members are either based on a total ignorance of management reality or have been shaped by that very, very small portion of the labour market whose performance would not justify their place in most workplace teams.

I have yet to read one convincing piece that justifies the need for these changes or describes the apparent raod map these represent to either higher wages or increased employment or productivity.

Analyses I have read argues rather than propagandises ( if that is a word ) contradcits all of the assumptions.

Australian employers ( 82% of them) were reported in the Financial Reveiw that the changes would not effect them significantly.

The same paper reported that WA workers under AWA were lower paid than workers under awards, in direct contradicition to the Governments claims.

No one has articulated the link between increased employment and removal of unfair dismissal laws - And all of the rigorous academic analysis - see www.econ.usyd.au/WOS/IRchangesreportcard - suggests that the changes will not benefit workers - I guess thats the point isnt it?

And the churches are unhappy.

Employers are not inclined to share profits with the workers; the assumption seems to be as the changes mysteriously improve productivity and profitability the benefits will be transformed into new and higher paid jobs - essentially it is a fallacious argument particualry in an economy based on primary production with a limited manufacturing base.

Ireland - having outstripped Australia retains a fairly controlling wage and IR system - but they have what industrial captains of industry do not have - drive, imagination, courage and a vision that extends beyond the emblem on the nose of their BMW.

THese changes will not draw more people to restaurants, they will not enable a widget factory to produce more widget per hour, they will put a premium on the price of raw materials - they will reduce costs to employers; if there is no market for new goods there is no prodctivity gains or employment growth. These changes are evil.

These changes were not what the Governmeent was voted in for: they have talked up IR changes in broad terms and lack the guts to detail their proposal becuase it would be upalatable to the electorate.

Lets hope the Nats see some sense and exercise some muscle on this front.

You make a good point about the costs of hiring however many jobs are now casualised or the hiring function is decentralised and the hiring costs effectively hidden from the auditors.

My casual jobs involve me being rung and asked to fill in at 1 hours notice.
For 1 job I signed an AWA, no coercion about it, after they received the signed AWA I was rung up for work.
The copy of the AWA sent to me for signature, is the abbreviated AWA that says that standard hours of work are 38 hours. The AWA lists my obligation to advise when I am unable to work and acceptable standards of dress and behaviour.
I work until the demand for my labour ceases, generally I work a minimum of 1 hour but some supervisors think that 90 minutes is a reasonable mimimum.
Once I appeared for work and was told they didn't need me.
No where in my copy of the AWA is there listed the minimum call out time.

If pensioners have to tighten their belts why shouldn't workers? Well society expects our young people to keep Australia prosperous and secure, look after us in our old age and give us grandchildren. If young people are so weighed down by HECS debts and low wages then they won't have ttime or money to rear our grandchildren properly.

The major employer in my small country town has recently restructured its internal workings such that its employees have found themselves divided amongst several smaller entities, all of which now have less than 100 employees.

They are now pressuring workers to move from 8 hour shifts to 10 hour shifts, which the workers are resisting, citing safety issues and disruption to families.

I suppose that's a coincidence, Perseus?

First and foremost-Howard is considered to be untrustworthy by most Australians according to polls.
Howard is an unmitigated liar - yes! easily shown and proved.
Howard has campaigned against ALL pay claims for the lowest paid - he "naturally" sided with the employers.
Howard revealed his new laws to the heads of business FIRST!
The economy is bubbling along quite nicely then suddenly Howard wants to change the laws - Why?
Could it be that the mean-spirited liberals want a permanent underpaid group of poor that would be easily manipulated- like America [led by john's hero] has at present?
Could it be that howard and his sycophants are looking to increase donations from big business to the liberal party machine. Don't laugh after all we have all seen this government in action.Remember brother Stanley and the big donor who manufacturs ethanol for two.
Could it be that the liberals are making sure that there are well paid jobs for them when they retire - whether voluntary or not? think this is silly and paranoid then look at the clapped out failed politicians Howard has rewarded with o/seas posts. Look at all the boards etc howard has stacked with his seemingly compliant toadies.
Could it be that it's the liberal thing to do, their ethos?
Could it be that howard and his compliant - yes I include barnaby - followers want to kill off the labour party finances ei donations?
Here we have a person that has two tax payer funded homes and an RAAF "taxi" service to get him from Sydney to Canberra - a humble person? Looking at his record is this person to be believed?
I can see CEO's lowering wages and conditions so they can receive bigger and more obscene bonus's. We have all seen these what some would call money worshippers. numbat

The IR changes proposed by Howard are somewhat pathetically mild. We still end up with basic non-coersive human relationships being regulated by the coersive instruments of the state.

Offering people a job that pays less than $11 per hour will still be illegal. But while it remains illegal for the private sector to create real jobs for the low skilled, the government continues to be able to force the unemployed to do "community work" while paying the dole which is a lot lower than $11 per hour. Its kind of like a government run slave program.

We should cut the bullsh%t and abolish the minimum wage (or at least reduce it). Then at least the government would have to compete with the private sector for its low paid workforce.

If people think that low skilled workers need a subsidy then the community should pay for it. At the moment the expectation is that individual employers should shoulder the cost alone. Of course the consequence is that employers find capital based alternatives to unskilled labour or other ways to avoid creating such jobs in the first place. And of course the victims are marginal workers that end up with less job security and more time in the unemployment queues.

Ho Hum why do we bother.What would this author consider radical change? Howard introduces the 2005 version of the Master/ Servant Act and he tells us we will have better lifes.These people put Goebells to shame.I wholeheartedly agree that the architects of this legislation are pure evil.

Goebells ... Evil ...

Hedgehog take a shot of reality with a perspective chaser. There is much that makes sense in the proposals, it is hardly going to end up with people in gas chambers. What total utter nonsense which no-one can take seriously.

Goebells. I can't believe someone would make such a comparison. You are suffering from some kind of delusion and it is useless to try and debate.

I hope you are not in anyway involved with a union because that kind of advice to your fellow workers would be a disgrace.

t.u.s.

the usual suspect: Please don't attack other writers personally. Your attack will not change them and it makes you look and sound like a total prat Now you have me doing it. numbat

From a retired old cockie, who has never worked for a boss in his adult life, except for a bush bank manager, but who has acquired a post-grad in history, politics, and macro-economics in his retirement. Favourite politician - Black Jack McEwen - Australian Country Party.

Now this particular article does not directly concern our present IR problems in Australia, but does appear to give an insight into a certain doctrine that has caused France and Germany to vote against the Anglo-American neo-liberal model in regard to the Maastricht Treaty and its industrial relations. From a political philosophical point of view, according to the lecturer-writer, John M Legge, although the neo-liberal model has proved to achieve very low unemployment, it does so through low comparative wages, lousy working conditions, poor public services and in the case of the USA, appalling public health care. But the most interesting point is, that even with all the extra employment, America cannot match the productivity of France and Germany which is attained with higher wages, and though undoubtedly more unemployment and the necessary social welfare, apparently the bond between employer and worker is much healthier netting the higher production.

"Where wages are high, accordingly we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than when they are low." Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations.
.
The article by John M Legge is in the academic-based magazine “Dissent” recommended by the Murdoch School of Humanities, Murdoch - Western Australia.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Most of us posting seem to have this "The government and life owes me a living" attitude...

Team.. your mum and dad owe you a living... the government does not.

As mentioned elsewhere, I've just had a few days in Singapore, and I made observations with many questions in mind from here that hitherto had not really been in my mind when there. I photographed a 77 yr old guy clearing tables in a hawker centre.....

There is NO social welfare in Singapore apart from your family. There is a minimum 'roof+allowance' kind of gov't help if you manage to pass the detailed scrutiny of your personal situation where if you have family you don't qualify.

In Manila, I visited a family with just a kitchen, and 2 bedrooms, but boy oh boy, they had it set up for screen printing of T-shirts and were doing hundreds. (in between cooking and living) cut out all the stencils painstakingly by hand, and were forging ahead.

Its about time the category described by Kenny (minimum wage guy with non working wife and 2 or 3 kids) woke up to the opportunities available when you look for them.

I can't say I favor IR changes which disadvantage anyone, but I also don't favor the mentality which a welfare system breeds of sitting back and waiting for the next spoon feed mouthful to come our way.

C'mon aussies, lets show a bit of spirit and grit and self sufficiency and get on with the job of looking after ourselves

I agree with Boaz. It seems that some people think the government owes them a living if they somehow manage to lose their job (despite unfair dismissal laws) and when they've got a job they think the unions should be doing there best to increase their wages at the slightest hint of unfavourable economic outcomes (e.g., petrol prices going up) while screwing everyone else who doesnt have a job.

Get rid of unfair dismissal laws, abolish minimum wages, and overhaul social welfare (sliding scale for the dole). Better yet, put the responsibility of welfare onto the family. Let individuals look after themselves and take responsibility for their own actions.

At the end of the day, if the whole 20:80 thing happens, which it wont, we can always revolt.

I spent 30 years working hard, usually for good wages, in an industry that has been outsourced to India, as part of government policy. That's 200,000 high skilled jobs gone. The industry was not unionised so for most of that time there was no overtime payments, no minimum call out rates - you could be woken at 2am to fix a problem then have to appear in the office at 8am. Add to that the loss of engineers has meant that Victorian infrastructure is now built without local knowledge.

During that time I paid my taxes and contributed to super under the assumption that the money would be used to give the next generation good educations and appropriate levels of health care whether their families could afford it or not. I didn't think Australia would be rearing such ungrateful brats at The Usual Suspect and Weapon.

I am currently a member of a union because if there is an incident the union might represent me.
Unions have ensured that work places like coal mines have been made safe, have jockeyed so that injured workers and their families are cared for.
In the miners strike of 1890's unions fought for shearers to retain their wages of 17/- per hundred which were lower wages than they got in 1860 of 1 guinea per 100 sheep.
As a wash up of the 1890's landboom in Victoria half the households in Melbourne starved while the developers declared themselves bankrupt, making part payments of farthing in the pound and retained the gracious old mansions which Melbourne is famous for.
The prime ministers family has shown its disregard for workers when the prime ministers brother misappropriated the employees superannuation contributions of National Textiles in Maitland

Dear Boaz,
Some of us would like a society where people could earn a little more than a roof and accomodation. Not all of us wish to rely on our family. Once upon a time with a real wage and full time job, people could earn earn to save money.

Weapon- there is a sliding scale for the dole, along with a 75% marginal tax rate. Some people complain about 45%. Not us though. We're just grateful to have a job for a few weeks...
Must quit working & get back to saving money.

"THese changes will not draw more people to restaurants, they will not enable a widget factory to produce more widget per hour, they will put a premium on the price of raw materials - they will reduce costs to employers; if there is no market for new goods there is no prodctivity gains or employment growth. These changes are evil."

This comment displays a stunning ignorance of economics, which is pretty typical of the fluffy left who are opposing these IR changes.

Even if the only difference from these changes is an increase in profits to employers, what do you think happens to that extra money?

Do employers hide it under the bed? Put it in their Scrooge McDuck money tank and swim around in it?

Of course not. They reinvest it and grow their business, which creates demand for new products and services, and in turn new jobs.

For people like Sneekeepete who were too busy smoking bongs to take economics in year 11, here's the circular flow diagram.

http://www.cr1.dircon.co.uk/TB/3/cflow.htm

If you read on further, you might even learn something.

Numbat - It wasn't meant to be a personal attack - just the fact that it really grates my goat when people try to compare modern day Australia with Nazis - this is supposed to be reasoned debate and comments like that are irrational.

Sandy - So glad to hear you worked hard all your life, which is what I've tried to do in my short period in the workforce.
Don't see how this makes me an ungrateful brat.
I am grateful that the public schools I went to had good teachers who help my education.
I am grateful that my parents taught me the value of hard work and sacrifice.
I am grateful that healthcare in this country is very good.
Could you please tell me where I have been ungrateful.
I work hard, I spend time with my kids, I do volunteer work, I coach kids football, I'm active in the community.
All I have done is offer the view that I think the IR changes have merit, especially for the small businesses who make up a large proportion of the businesses where I live.

t.u.s

Interesting point, Mahatma Duck. One of the best jobs I have ever had, and certainly the best available (most suitable) at that time, allowed me to work three 13 hour shifts with a four day weekend. It allowed me to get the bill paying obligations out of the way in short time and get on with other projects more dear to my heart.

The change from 8 to 10 hour shifts in your town is likely to come with a 3 day weekend. So while there may be some disruption of existing schedules there is also a very valuable trade-off that you chose not to mention.

The real value of these reforms will be felt at the very depth of the next recession when the rate of company failures is shown to be less than under previous recessions.

The continued survival of companies, and the jobs of both managers and employees, may well be purchased with reduced pay, reduced hours, or both. But if you have ever seen the devastation that is caused to a one industry town by company failure, you would know that a system that compells fixed conditions in every sort of circumstance is nothing but a cruel, cynical form of Russian Roulette. The chances may only be one in six but if the number comes up then the result is devastating.

And it is no small irony that it is the one industry towns that run the highest risks under the existing system because economies contract most at the periphery. Unlike urban job loss, there is no alternative jobs just up the road. If the company fails the town dies and there is nothing left to restart when conditions improve.

They have most to gain by a framework that allows them to survive the downturns and make good when the economy turns around. This system doesn't force any outcome on worplaces that don't need it. But those that do need it can use it.

Yobbo commented along the lines that, simple economics would show that the employers would put the profits back into the business therefore create more products etc. What I see is, that, should the worker not have money to spend after living costs, then there will not be much of a sustainable economy. You cannot spend what you do not have. Maybe the 'Company' or business will buy product as they need it,but who do they sell their goods to? The economy cannot grow.

Re the comment of seeing an elderly person cleaning tables in a cafe, is that what you want to see in Australia? People who have worked hard all their lives actually tire, physically weaken and AGE. There are few people in their 70's who could sustain the agility and speed needed to work in a cafe etc. Community means looking after those who cannot look after themselves, are we now so heartless that we have no respect for our elders, for the weak etc?

I witnessed first hand similar practices in the USA, with many elderly people working in places such as Walmart purely to pay for their medication and healthcare. These people are NOT working for the love of the job, they are working to live. This, at a time when they should be able to enjoy their golden years. My husband worked (In the USA) with a man of 76 in a cut throat sales job just to pay for his wife's cancer drugs. This is not rare, rather it is becoming the norm. The Australia I love would not expect nor would the majority want to see such practices here. Modelling ourselves on a system that is not working such as the USA is rather dangerous and pointless.

There have been comments made about workers expecting handouts. Workers are called workers because they WORK. We all just want a fair days pay for a fair days work

Goebells mastered the art of portraying the unpalatable, the wicked, and outright evil as being a good thing for Germany. There was no truth or merit in the spin he put on Nazi atrocities. I think it is a shame you cant understand the analogy. PS insult and abuse me all you like, i expect nothing less from your ilk.

"Modelling ourselves on a system that is not working such as the USA is rather dangerous and pointless."

Not working? The USA has the worlds strongest economy, highest GDP, highest PPP per Capita, strongest culture, highest Average wage, one of the lowest unemployment rates, blah blah blah. Need I go on?

If that's "not working", you must have a funny definition of it.

What is it that you really hate about the USA? The fact that they thought of everything good before you did?

By the way, just because the US doesn't have medicare doesn't mean that it's health system is poor. On the contrary, it has one of the best health systems in the world. The only catch is you have to remember to set aside some of your income and put it towards health insurance, because the government isn't going to force you to do it.

The fact that Americans pay 50% less tax and have 50% higher wages than Australians means that they can more than afford the cost of health insurance. Not having insurance and then complaining when you have to pay a lot when you get sick isn't really the fault of anyone except yourself.

So you can bash the US system all you like, but the fact is you're wrong and the easy way to tell is to look at emigration and business statistics.

How many Americans emigrate to live and work overseas? Not very many. How many people from all over the world stream into America every year to take part in their system that you say "doesn't work"?

In summation, if all you know about the USA is what you learned from watching ER and Michael Moore documentaries, then you should probably expand your reading list, because - and you may find this hard to believe - the vast majority of people in the world look up to the United States, and those countries who have tried hardest to emulate its success are now the most successful in their own right.

Yobbo, I am not American bashing for the fun of it, nor do I comment soley from watching American TV shows. I comment from a base of having lived there until recently. My comments arise from fact.

Having seen, witnessed and lived within the system. I refute your comments on the health system and wages. The health CARE itself is fantastic, and that was not my point. It is only available to those with money - we were paying $600 per month for my husband to have medical cover, we could not afford for me to be included. Many with private health insurance still have to mortgage their homes just to have medical treatment. A friend with health cover, had a heart attack and two days in hospital his out of pocket expenses were $158,000. The average worker cannot afford to get sick in the USA. Our GP only charged us $100 per visit with the average in our city of $200 to $300 a visit. Children often miss out on medical treatment as their parents cannot afford it.

The average wage being high is a nonsense. Most of the jobs in sales, general office administration, lower management, blue collar average between $5.00 per hour to $10.00 per hour. Many of the large retail chains pay $6.50 to $7.50 for top salespeople, with a minimum sales reached before any extra in commission is offered. In quiet times, a person may only take home $1,500.00 a month. Many people cannot support their families, and often need to work 3 jobs just to survive. Many firms also bargain with 'vacation time' and pressure staff to not take the time owing, and bully staff with comments such as 'you are not loyal to the company if you take this time' Just check Walmart court actions to verify some of my claims. Some states in the USA are broke as they have lost most of their manufacturing industries.

I question why you are so defensive when I have pointed out factual events. Statistics mean nothing when your children are hungry and you are broke

“Not working? The USA has:

“the worlds strongest economy” – and some of the worst working conditions

“highest PPP per Capita” – as with most statistical information, this is easy to quote when 5% own 85% of the wealth.

“strongest culture” – and this has what to do with economics? Besides, do you define strong culture as the largest producer of pornography? The largest producer of weapons? The highest number of serial killers? The highest usage of cosmetic surgery? (None having to do with economics but great indicators for culture…)

“one of the lowest unemployment rates” – as most have to work 2 -4 jobs to stay afloat, I guess this is easy too?

“highest Average wage” – Wrong!

“blah blah blah” – pretty well sums up your arguments…

“need I go on?” – not really…

To Yobbo.

The employers you are talking about are the ones whom Adam Smith, the father of the free-market talked about as the good and honest entrepreneurs who regarded their workmen
as valuable. These were also the employers who were reasonably happy in their lot and were somewhat surprised when even their workmen suggested the boss looked like getting somewhere and he was a good sort of fella to expand, as you have suggested, Yobbo. And certainly that fella would have been paying good wages, even around the year 1780, when Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations, which also contained the simple formula about better wages maketh better and willing workers.

Thinkers like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill also warned that the greed that was so necessary for competition, would also include the old-style entrepreneur, who regarded the workers not much better than slaves.

That is what we have our arbitration laws for, apart from necessary unions. Moreover, as an oldie who is still a bit out of touch, could one ask our gallant assembly of Posters, will the new Liberal IR plan affect or even abolish the present Arbitration system? I bloody hope not!

George C, WA - Bushbred

"Prime Minister John Howard is a conservative, as is Industrial Relations Minister Kevin Andrews. They are against change for its own sake. They are, however, also politicians who want to remain in power and know that the key to doing so is"

That is as far as I can agree with the Author of the article.
I would complete the sentence with..................................

'to serve their masters, Corporate Australia, by increasing their bottom line profits.....'

boaz: Ever thought of joining the liberal party? As the minister for the aged you could have all us weak, sick old fools & sods (who probably paid for your "education") sweeping streets and mowing nature strips. Of course Christianity says absolutely nothing about showing love and compassion eh?
In the paper this morning: quote-"Workers who were unable to renegotiate employment contracts with their bosses could look for another job" YES! this from our very caring Workplace Minister Kevin Andrews. Ah yes Kevin but of course on their reference, if they got one at all, would be perhaps "trouble maker, would not sign a workplace agreement"
Where did this minister come from, of course from his cosy position as one of howards many compliant yes people. He will never have to work again, never have to front Centre Link, with his obscene super payout.
Another quote: "You won't find it anywhere in the thousands of words in yesterday's newspaper advertisements on industrial relations. But the government wants to increase further the gap in earnings between those on high and low incomes" This by 'Mike Steketee, of the Australian.
What a loving caring government - no wonder the first people howard spoke to about this new law was the bosses and CEOs, his special, close friends.
Howard in every election has as could be said paid voters for their vote so naturally he would despise them EH! Boy it shows now. numbat

I don't understand this article at all. Mr Nahan saying that John Howard is not capable of radical change because he is a conservative?
- Doctrine of pre-emption
- Detention without charge
- Shutting down the AIRC (a century old institution)
- Westminster principles of ministerial responsibility

Agree or not with the government's policies, this is not a conservative government in the contra-progressive meaning of the word.

I really don't like these Senate inquiries of 14 days and not letting the parliament see the legislation, so the opposition is forced to shadow box. Whatever the merits of the legislation, I am not going to agree with the government because of this advertising and neither should anyone else.

Well done Barnaby Joyce! Without his effort, I wouldn't have even known about the ACCC being stripped of its powers. The Senate is back, undertaking its constitutional job.

Hello everone,

Mike Nahan's article is full of contradictions. He berates the "protective tariff system", and then berates Labor for "pulling it down". He argues that the protective tariff walls that developed Australia is "one of the most restrictive workplace regulations in the world", yet tariff protection is about allowing a nation to build and develop in the face of foreign competitors, not workplace conditions.

The truth is, Howard is following in the footsteps of the Bush family and is becoming a globalist and that means he is representing multi-national and large domestic companies, whose sole purpose is to profit and make money with minimum cost, including the use of cheap labor.

The protective tarrif system that Nahan berates should be re-established, and the furphy "Free Trade Agreement" abolished....because under Howard's leadership, more than 50% of Australian companies and business are now not even owned by Australians, we have a $1.4 trillion debt situation (as of July 1st 2005), of which $549 billion is Net International Investment Liability (Foreign Debt and Net Equity Debt), and a $17 billion trade deficit.

How does this affect Industrial Relations? If Australian businesses and companies are not owned by Australians (and Aussies buy Aussie goods and services), and workplace (employee) conditions maintained, Australians jobs will be cut, and we will be forced to make our labor cheaper, and that means salary cuts. Howard's proposals will never benefit the [Australian] worker; good for employers (20% of the working population), crap for employees (80% of working polpulation).

Besides, Howard lies all the time, and he's using tens of millions (who knows the exact amount??)of OUR tax money to advertise his propaganda, which is against Section 56 of our commonwealth constitution. He doesn't appropriate money bills for political advertising in the House of Representatives, which is also against section 56 of the constitution, and that is corruption. You can't spend tax payers money until the bill has been okayed by the Governor General, and passed by the Senate.

Should have been voted out at the last election.

Teresa van Lieshout
http://onenationwa.tripod.com/

Howard's proposed IR reforms baffle me. I'm a uni student who has held a few casual jobs and is now having trouble finding work to support myself in a new town with a high youth unemployment rate. In the rare event that I am actually able to obtain a job interview, I don't see how I would be able to "negotiate" my working conditions with a prospective employer under the IR reforms. I imagine that the object of job interviews for low and semi-skilled jobs would be to find the employee who would work the longest, for the least amount of money, under the conditions which are most desirable for the employer (not the employee). Employing new staff will be based on who is willing to give up the most, not on who is the most skilled or experienced. You can imagine the potential effects that this would have on family lives and studying.

People with low bargaining power like me rely on the workplace protections that are curently in place. We want decent jobs with decent conditions. We want a reasonably level playing field. What we don't want is to have to compete with eachother for jobs (more than we already do) based on who will work for the least amount of money.

Just how much do we have to give up as individuals in order to acheive "economic growth" and "international competitiveness"? Is it really worth it? Why not encourage a highly skilled workforce instead of driving kids out of universities? What are we acheiving as a nation by forcing our workers to work longer and harder?

I am depressed and even more depressed by the direction this government is taking this nation.
Over the last five years the government and some of the right wing presses deceived us over Iraq, WMD, and the war on terror.
Some Aussies were deceived over children overboard, the threat asylum seekers might cause us: Delivering us the stupid barbaric expensive Pacific solution.
Higher education has and will become beyond the reach of the average Aussie without a thick wallet. More and more of our educational resources will be leased out to overseas students.
We were conned by the iron-clad guarantees over Medicare.

Now Aussies are now paying themselves to be conned by simplistic
economics that were at home in pre- 1830's England..

Anyone with a bit of nouse can see whats on the horizon.
Well start building more and more privatised prisons like the U.S where people at the bottom end who have to wait 9 weeks for welfare will become desperate enough to commit petty crimes in order to survive.

Australia can't you see these changes are a nightmare for all Australians. All the settings for a dysfunctional ugly society are being put in place!

Hey Yobbo,

l studied economics and the idea that businesses reinvest all profits back into their business and create new jobs is straight out of 1st year economics. Very naive to say the least. The only thing about economics that actually made any sense to me was something that my lecturer told us one day...that you can link the worlds economists hand to hand, enuff to encircle the globe twice and none of them would ever reach agreement.

Economic theory has a wounderful capacity for taking sheer leaps of faith and dressing them up in numbers and formulae and essentially contructing wounderfully contrived self serving rationale. The favourite qualifier of all economics models is ceteris parabis... all things being equal. Hate to burst your bubble but all things are never equal. You cannot eliminate variance and level the field by way of pretending just so that a theory flies. Major flaw there.

Anyway, l am not blanketly dismissing economics just trying to knock off some of the pretentions of the 'exact science' mantra that babblers of economic rhetorical theorum rely so heavily upon.

Yob, l have also owned and operated a few businesses and l gotta tell you that the number one objective was to take the profits OUT of the business and put them into others areas of my life... you know house, car, holidays, toys, other investments. l crunch numbers for a living and have done a lot of that for various business operators over the last 2 decades and ALL of them aim to get money OUT of the business... that is wot drives them. The business is a means not an end.

Whenever too much (unsustainable) profit was reinvesated for expansion, often to the point of borrowing, that usually had a way of making the business go backwards. Productivity can often suffer because economies of scale sometimes dont eventuaute and sometimes you just end up going from steak to noodles because you were romanced by the alure of caviar. Then there is efficient use of capital, something that is paramount to all business owners. Whats the use of having to double capital invest and triple your work force and work twice as hard for a 25% profit increase? Might as well put that capital into something else... like another business.

Now, if this all sounds a bit stupid to you, thats ok, blame it on the gunja. You would be surprised how many business owners and so called capitalist conservatives enjoy the wacky backy with a glass of red. You really would.

trade 215,

Nice summary of economics. No wonder you became an accountant. As for your "you could line up all the economist in the world blah blah blah". That applies to just about anything in life. Try getting anyone anywhere to agree on anything. You'll also find that every field of science and social science applies ceteris paribus when modelling complex interactions because it is the only way that we can understand how things work. And who called economics an exact science anyway (apart from you)?

As for the rest of your post, what's your point? Where do you think the profit from business goes? When you spend money on "house, car, holidays, toys" it goes into other businesses. And any business person who doesnt reinvest into their business goes broke. You run down your assets.

"Then there is efficient use of capital, something that is paramount to all business owners. Whats the use of having to double capital invest and triple your work force and work twice as hard for a 25% profit increase?"

I think you answered your own question there. 25% profit increase. If your making profit why wouldnt you expand? Profit implies that you have something left over after you take your expenses (including your personal income which you spend on toys and cars etc) out. What else are you going to do with the money. You seem to be assuming that nobody wants to work twice as hard.

"Yob, l have also owned and operated a few businesses and l gotta tell you that the number one objective was to take the profits OUT of the business and put them into others areas of my life... you know house, car, holidays, toys, other investments."

Well you just proved my point. You didn't put the money under your mattress, you spent it, which creates economic growth and employment.

"Then there is efficient use of capital, something that is paramount to all business owners. Whats the use of having to double capital invest and triple your work force and work twice as hard for a 25% profit increase? Might as well put that capital into something else... like another business."

Whether you invest into the existing business or a new business, or just spend the money on beer makes absolutely zero difference to the economic effects of the investment. For someone who spent about 300 words explaining how much they knew about economics you missed this fairly obvious point.

There also needs to be reforms in terms of Govt over regulation.There is so much red tape and mal-administration in NSW that business is just moving to other states.I see this as a higher priority than having individual workplace agreements.Employers just want to be able to hire and keep good workers and rid themselves of lay abouts without the legal disease.

I just worry about the Howard Govt just servicing the big end of town and letting small business diminish even more.

If the reforms seriously disadvantage ordinary workers,then we will again see the growth of radical unions and we will all lose.We cannot compete with China or India on the price of labour,nor should we try to.There is obiviously pressure on the Govt to do something about the balance of payments which continues to blow out as we import more.Where are the Govt incentives to create our own industries in new technology?What happened to the concept of the smart country?There is a very real fear that China and India will soon leave us in their wake however we should not diminish wages and conditions to match those of third world countries.

Just make Govt and public administration more efficient,get more people off social security reduce taxes and everyone can share in the bounty,not just big business and drone shareholders.

Dear Suki
yes, all of us would like a bit more than a roof and allowance for munchies. No argument.

The problem is... reality.

I point to other places, to illustrate just how good we have it here, and how silly we are to whine about how 'tough' it is.

Our abundance and quality of life, is based on certain economic foundations, which were (and to a degree are) tied to the British Empire/Commonwealth, and the various connections etc.

I don't know where any of us who 'desire' abit more than a roof etc think it is coming from. It sure isn't going to fall out of the sky :)

I truly believe we need to think carefully in our own minds about where our current prosperity came from, and on what it currently depends, then identify threats, and take action accordingly (a S.W.A.T) That may involve some lateral thinking. Even zipping around some industrial areas and offering a grass cutting service which we could do on weekends. They would pay a LOT more than 'wages' for that.

Or maybe even doing house cleaning.. loads of that kind of work around. But to expect it to just 'be given' or 'happen' is a tad on the fantasy land side of things.

I continue to urge all of us to treasure extended family, and to keep our kinship networks strong, they are the best form of social welfare we can ever have, they probably actually care.

The ONLY possible direction industrial relations can go is 'longer hours, same pay, more work etc'. Think of this, most mass manufacturing is going now to China, as they improve their quality and skill base, we are losing ours, and parts are being outsourced.

IT skills, call centre work all being outsourced to Bangalore or Phillipines or Malaysia's CyberJaya Hi Tech growth corridore.

Customer support, even SALES are going to overseas, most public interface is trending to 'online' which lends itself to the above.
(Rang Citylink lately ? :)

We are now being consumed by the same economic principles which established us.

A small point to consider when reading Nahan's article. The Institute of Public Affairs is a conservative thinktank, not the ideologically-neutral research institute that its name suggests. Follow the money, and you'll discover who's wagging the dog.

Terje,

You correctly liken the "work for the dole" program to a "government run slave program" and then imply that abolishing the minimum wage would end this exploitation by the government.

This is an interesting and unusual way to argue for reducing the conditions and pay of lower paid Australians

Even if we accept this argument, what sort of life can anyone hope to live on wages of less than $11 per hour?

These outcomes is certainly not we were told to expect at the outset of the experiment in neo-liberalism and globaliasation back in he early 1980's.

If this is the best we can hope for for a large proportion of the Australian workforce after more than 20 years of thes so-called 'reforms', then it is certainly time we questioned the assumptions of globalisation and neo-liberalism.

"Even if we accept this argument, what sort of life can anyone hope to live on wages of less than $11 per hour?"

That depends entirely on how many hours they work. If they work 10 hours a week, not much of a life. 50 hours, a fairly comfortable life, but probably without a plasma TV.

"If this is the best we can hope for for a large proportion of the Australian workforce after more than 20 years of thes so-called 'reforms'"

A tiny proportion of the Australian workforce receives the minimum wage, and Australia' minimum wage is already the 2nd highest among OECD countries as a percentage of the Average wage. (58% of the average wage, where 33% is more the norm.)

What proponents of the minimum wage don't realise is that it hurts the poor and unskilled most of all. The 2 million unemployed Australians are unemployed because of the minimum wage.

Their labour simply isn't worth $12 an hour, so instead they get nothing, even though a large percentage of them would happily work for less.

Hundreds of thousands of under-21 Australians work for less than the minimum wage and are happy to have the job. Adults are prevented by law from lowering their selling price this way.

If the minimum wage was halved tomorrow, millions of Australians would be better off, and that's an unarguable fact.

The most vulnerable in our society are young people who are about to join the work force.They have no bargaining power, no work skills and generally no idea of what career they want to follow. They are at the mercy of the prospective employer who essentially devalues their contribution to his/her wealth creation scheme.
Without enforceable regulation of pay and conditions,this country would very quickly revert to the laws of the jungle where only the skilled whose labour is in demand prosper.
The rest are remunerated in direct proportion to their ability to bargain. Unions are the means whereby workers collectively bargain so it is no mystery why the Howard Government seek to destroy the AIRC and replace it with their 'fair Pay'model.
They also seek to further shackle Unions who would stand in the way.
This attack on Workers Conditions heralds a surge in counter activity by organised labour so when the disruption to productivity affects the profitability of business you will know who to blame

Maracas - apart from guarantees they are receiving minimum conditions and pay, what do young people have to offer employers apart from their time.

Many school leavers are unskilled, have no experience and no qualifications. Would you pay someone in this situation $15 an hour when someone else is quite happy to work for the minimum. No you wouldn't.

A foot in the door is the most important thing for young people and once the employment cycle starts, they gain experience, knowledge, trust with their employer and skills which they can then use to negotiate better pay or move on to a better job.
You have to start somewhere.

I worked various jobs to put myself through university before becoming a journalist on a cadetship of about $23,000 per year. This is about $11.50 per hour, for a job which I had tertiary qualifications. It was still enough for my wife and child to live off, if we budgeted well. I gained experience and ended with more money after proving I could do the job.
$11 an hour and experience is better than no job and no experience.

The same thing happens to new businesses. I am sure all new owners would love to have the best staff working for them to get the best productivity, but unfortunately, if the business doesn't have the runs on the board they will find it hard to get the best people.

There is only one way to get experience and that is in a job.

t.u.s

T.U.S
I went to the school of hard knocks. I worked at Real jobs and a lot of my employers were real arseholes that didn't appreciate a willing worker.I worked through the 50's recession at a job where the boss could pick and choose from a constant stream of unemployed who came to the work site asking for work. I was running all day doing the work of three men and still not appreciated. The job was not unionised. I soon learned of the value of a Union.
Apart from earning pocket money as a lad delivering papers, Ice , Milk and bread, mowing lawns and running messages for neighbours, my first job was with Caltex Oil Company as a Junior Clerk on 3pounds 6 shillings per week. It cost me 1 pound ten shillings to get to work and I gave my mother 1 pound 5 shillings 'board'.
I told the accountant to stick the job up his arse when he told me I had to come to work in a bloody suit !!
The rest of my work experience was try anything.
I have never been on the dole and I was not left a legacy from my parents other than a work ethic to work hard.
Until I found my niche I had more jobs than you probably had breakfasts.
I worked 35 years in my last job before I retired aged 69.
I am now a 'self funded retiree' I have to join a health fund because I am denied a 'Health Card'.
I am now quite cynical about actions of the Howard Government ever being of benefit to working people.
He represents his masters, Corporate Australia

The thing is, letting young people negotiate their wages will put massive downward pressure on EVERYONES wages. I remember being fifteen and doing work experience at Target (and this was not as long ago as I sometimes like to imagine!), and being THRILLED that I was being paid $5 a day. That was riches, when you consider I was being given $5 a week pocket money.

But if kids at fifteen and sixteen, who do not know any better, are happy to be paid five, ten, fifteen dollars for a day's work, WHY would anyone employ anyone else? And what person who did not have Mum and Dad paying for everything could live on such wages?

In low skilled jobs, having minimum pay and conditions is particuarly important, as the people doing these jobs do not have the skills to negotiate. I know my fifteen-year-old self was certainly not able to say no when called in with half an hour's notice, or asked to stay late, or negotiate for anything.

The argument of beggars can't be choosers is inhumane. We need to have standards so we cannot race to the bottom. The people close to the bottom are struggling enough without having to fight each other for even lower standards.

maraccas - Have a look around, it is the working people who have voted Howard in for the past four elections, traditional Labor people jumping ship to the Coalition. Why? because the majority of them are better off.

I can't see your problem, you worked all your life, obviously hard and saved enough and was smart enough to be a self-funded retiree. It looks like you are an example of someone who has become self-sufficient through hard work and taking whatever came along (except jobs where a suit was required - burn that corporate noose man)

Laurie - Minimum conditions are protected. They will be legislated for the first time, not part of an award. They will be law and the Fair Pay Commission will set minimum wage which cannot fall below that which it currently is.

And employing young people to work retail happens now. How many 40-year-olds do you see working at Maccas. None because it is cheaper to pay kids and it gives them a valuable experience and skills.

$5 an hour is gold for a fifteen year old, so why not let them earn it if they are willing to. Let people decide what wage they want to work for, as long as it doesn't fall below the minimum standard.

t.u.s.

Mike Nathan must never have been exploited by an employer, many including myself have, under the current legislation, there is not enough protection for vunerable employee's, let alone bring in new legislation, which lowers wages and conditions, and gives your boss the right to sack you, whenever he feels like it, without recourse. We are going back to the Master/Servant days of 100 years ago, with this Bill, John Howard has wanted this since he entered politics in the 70's, not on the eve of his retirement, and giant handshake, as he leaves, he fulfills a life's dream, to rub the workers nose into the s@#t. Any give his friends "big business" the break, they have dreamed of also. All of course at the expense of the employee, but "good for business" profit's will soar, employees, especially low income, single income employees will struggle to survive, what a legacy to leave behind for your nation, the "most hated prime minister in history"

Yobbo,

You don't have a clue about the low paid casualised labour market, or else you are pretending not to . I suggest you read Elisabeth Wynhausen's "Dirt Cheap":

"I learnt that casual employment at the Store had one thing going for it, only one : a casual rate of $19.06 an hour. Although about half of all casual employees believe they get a casual loading, the loading doesn't compensate for foregone benefits. Some casuals are employed for years at the lowest classification, while permanent employees move up the salary scale ... My gross pay was $624.55 les $80 in tax. ... So I pocketed $544.25, feeling almost rich until I remembered that my 32 and three quarters hours were spread over almost three weeks ... I had earned $200 a week, $33 less than the government benefit for a single unemployed person receiving the maximum rate of rent assistance." (p 176)

Yobbo wrote "Their labour simply isn't worth $12 an hour..."

And who are you to judge that the labour of millions of your fellow Australians is not even worth this miserable sub-subsistence pittance? Perhaps you think that they should be paid the same AU$200 per month paid to Malaysian workers who work 7 days per week and live within the factory?

And presumably you agree that the value of labour of lawyers, advertisers, real estate agents and financial advisers who produce no tangible useful wealth whatsoever is worth at least hundreds of dollars per hour?

No, it is not "an unarguable fact" that "millions of Australians would be better off" "if the minimium wage were halved tomorrow". We are disputing this supposed 'fact' on this very forum and the overwhelming majority of Australians don't accept it as a 'fact' either according to opinion polls.

"And who are you to judge that the labour of millions of your fellow Australians is not even worth this miserable sub-subsistence pittance?"

I'm not the one doing the judging. The fact that they are not employed with a minimum wage of $12 is all the proof you need.

"Perhaps you think that they should be paid the same AU$200 per month paid to Malaysian workers who work 7 days per week and live within the factory?"

A victory for hysterical emotional outbursts everywhere, this post is. $200 a month is quite good in Malaysia. There's this thing called "purchasing power" which you should probably look into before you shoot your mouth off again.

"And presumably you agree that the value of labour of lawyers, advertisers, real estate agents and financial advisers who produce no tangible useful wealth whatsoever is worth at least hundreds of dollars per hour?"

Your labour is worth whatever somebody will pay you for it. Any other explanation is just a rehash of Marx that was discredited a long, long time ago.

"We are disputing this supposed 'fact' on this very forum and the overwhelming majority of Australians don't accept it as a 'fact' either according to opinion polls."

Whether you believe it or not doesn't make it less true.

Yobbo,

So, the Malayasian workers who work 7 days a week for $200 per month and live in their factories have a good deal? As those salaries are so good as a result of their greater "purchasing power" I can only assume that life inside their factories must be more wonderful for them than being at home. Why else would they choose to work 7 days a week?

Perhaps Australia's unskilled should emigrate to Malaysia in order to share in their prosperity and the pleasures of a 7 day working week?

Your arguments are circular nonsense. The 'value' of Australian labour, and not just unskilled labour, has fallen because of a global oversupply of labour and could go all the way down to practically nothing if 'free market' forces are allowed to go unchecked.

It suits a minority of selfish greedy overpaid CEOs and their hangers on to to use this oversupply of labour to cause the impoverishment of Australia's workers whilst they rake in salaries orders of magnitude larger than many Australian workers.

In the meantime our manufacturing base has been largely exported overseas, and this trend continues. And we are left with an economy based upon property speculation, the digging up and export of non-renewable natural resources, a lot of paper shuffling, and little else.

This is unsustainable and will lead to the impoverishment of far greater numbers of Australians in the longer term.

We prospered in the past when lower skilled workers were paid decently and it should be possible for us prosper again if we abandon globalisation and economic 'rationalism'.

"Perhaps Australia's unskilled should emigrate to Malaysia in order to share in their prosperity and the pleasures of a 7 day working week?"

Well, people with a disability would certainly be well advised to do that. Countries in which unskilled work is still done at a community level, where family businesses still provide the populace with its daily bread instead of the supermarket don't have the same problems in employing them that we do.

Oh sorry - that's the concern of a different govt department, right? Just as the mental health risks brought about by people missing out on holidays and meal breaks. and the crime problems caused by all those teenagers let loose during said holidays while parents are stuck at the factory are another department's problem?

'Top down' community change - is that what you call this?

And did someone suggest that we didn't vote for it? Now I can't agree with that - for anyone who was listening to what Howard says and reviewing his track record, it was obvious that this would be a consequence of voting for him.

Ah, but "The key message from the past decade is that market-based reforms are good for growth and good for retaining political power. " Well, at least we can feel good about continuing growth ... of the income distribution gap.

Daggett - I wouldn't use Dirt Cheap as some kind of polemic to beat employers over the head with. It is hardly an inspiring book and even your quote from Wynhausen is misleading.
The $200 earnt in the Store per week would also be accompanied by the rent assistance and more than $90 in unemployment benefits. Around $350 for working just 11 hours per week.

Besides, many (not all by any means) use casual employment as a kind of supplement income - it is for mothers who chip in with some extra cash for the family or students in first jobs or helping to pay for university.

Others who need more money often hold a couple of casual jobs or work in low paid permanent jobs to have a regular income.

In the Dirt Cheap example, is it better for someone to work 11 hours at 19 bucks irregularly or 38 hours at 13 bucks every week. Which puts more money in the pocket and provides a regular income stream. I'll give you a hint - not the casual job.

t.u.s.

From many of the comments posted here, one would believe that many feel that what is classed as unskilled, being without certificates or degree or trade, only deserves the most minimal of wages. Many people I know would be affronted to be told that their work is so undervalued. Unskilled covers work such as cleaning, sales - retail and telesales, many older office workers do not have certificates. They just know the job, and know it well. They have 'skills' but are classed as unskilled in the statistics. With the comments raised, I have not seen how these people are expected to pay rent/mortgage, feed and clothe their kids, provide sporting fees etc. It is not about plasma TV's and those who think this is all that a working person thinks about, with their current budget, needs to take a closer look. Is a cleaner who works hard for 8 hours not entitled to a good income?

Where is the line drawn for those who deserve fair and decent wages and those who don't?

As for getting Government handouts when working casual jobs, you cannot get benefits if you are working less than 22 hours a week and not actively looking for work, either more hours or permanent employment. Minimal wages jobs will not only be offered to school age and 'pin money' mothers, it will be offered to the main breadwinner. Would anyone really like to work 3 jobs for a minimum of $12 per hour before tax with the possibility of still being below the poverty line?

Our parents struggled just to put food on the table,could only dream about buying a block of land or the remote possibility of a new car. Is this what we want for everyone? Have we really sunk so low that we are so scathing of hard work with less qualifications,and, only see Qualifications as the right of passage to good wages?
Can someone list the jobs they feel are deserving of a minimum wage, so that the rest of us can understand the yardstick being used

Yobbo
on Malaysia and wages ....

Only the non skilled people would get what you suggested. Last time 'day wages' for simple unskilled labor in Sarawak/Sabah was around $6/day
But a clerk, sales, customer support, etc etc.. people with a trade... they all make considerably MORE than that, and it might be a good thing to zip out to KL via the Airport and fast train and see just how 'poor' they are :) u will return to good ol melbourne feeling thoroughly '3rd world'. There are more Mercedes /square km there than here.

A lady I know has even financed a second house just by doing door to door health food sales. So, for the get up and go type, there is plenty of opportunity.
Same as for here. Maracas said it all, with his cutting lawns, messages for neighbours etc... its a matter of getting off our bums and DOING stuff.

I really get sick of the whining about the 'poor worker' who is often 'poor' economically because he/she has burnt $100/week on smokes and another $80 on grog.

If your employer is a bastard, LEAVE and seek opportunity elsewhere or on your own. I did, and 'it works'. You just have to be persistent and knock on doors, and a bit of confidence doesn't go astray. (and when u've made ur fortune, go back, buy the bosses company and sack him :)

BOAZ_David wrote : "A lady I know has even financed a second house just by doing door to door health food sales. So, for the get up and go type, there is plenty of opportunity."

Just how many more door-to-door salespersons does either Malaysia or Australia need? Of course there will always be a few individuals who will do well in an occupation which does not create any tangible wealth, but the rest of us would prefer to have occupations which allow us to make a useful contribution to society.

There is plenty of useful work out there which needs to be urgently done, in the area of repair to our damaged environment for a start, but somehow the 'free market' prefers to waste peoples' energies on the delivery of junk mail, telemarketing, door-to-door sales and other totally demeaning and useless occupations.

t.u.s., the $13-something on offer to Elisabeth Wynhausen on page 177 was NOT for a 38 hour week. It was for a PART-TIME non-casual role. Her co-worker who wanted a full time job, instead had to work five half day shifts.

"That made him typical of the growing number of people faced with the prospect of growing poverty because they couldn't get full time work - as if it were a commodity too valuable to throw away on the young. His bills were mounting up because he had to make regular payments, like the $70 dollar a month he owed Optus for his mobile phone, and he was $800 in debt he said."

Contrary to your pronouncement on "Dirt Cheap". I think that it is very inspiring and well written.

Elisabeth Wynhausen had put herself out for over 12 months in order to find out what life is reallly like at the "wrong end of the job market". I would like to see those in this forum who advocate cutting welfare and wages for the already miserably paid, claiming that they are doing so with their best interests, do as Elisabeth Wynhausen did.

Boaz-David: None of your business if someone blows however much on booze, cigarettes or prostitutes.
You appear to talk down to and/or patronise the unemployed, you know 'them'-ugh!, no sense, wasting their money.
The there's 'us' - clever, articulate, hard working, thoroughly decent oh! and so flamin humble that's possibly because we are loving Christians.
David get a life mate. numbat

I would have to agree with Mike Nathan - these IR laws are not radical....they are very close to facist, especially for low income earners, and single income families with children, who are living on the poverty line already. Do we really want na system that further empowers employers, as if they do not have enough power already, at the cost of the aforementioned, if these laws go ahead they will be struck down by the next Labor Government in 2 years time. We have not heard any justification for these laws, just cute advertising with $40 million of our money, I wonder what Nazi Germany was like?