The Prime Minister claims that he rules for everyone. He stated that people do not need to fear the Coalition Government taking control over the Senate. Today several thousand people demonstrated throughout Australia, the Prime Minister cannot claim he is governing for these people. He is reported as saying that these demonstrations were meaniningless.
In yesterdays Sydney Morning Herald it was stated that "the Workplace Minister, Kevin Andrews, has urged employers not to bow to unions' demands for pay deals before the Government's industrial relations changes become law." The article went on to say that any construction companies making contracts with workers prior to the new government Industrial Relations legislation are likely to not be given contracts from the Federal Government.
This is the coercise style of government we have come to expect when the Coalition Government deals with the States.
At best it can be termed unethical for the Prime Minister to claim that he is working on everybodies behalf and then to use coercion on private construction companies.

Malcolm Fraser a former Liberal Prime Minister is no fan of Mr Howard as indicated by crikey on 28.6.'05 ..."its not often that former Liberal prime ministers turn up on talkback radio sledging government policy. But that's exactly what happened when Malcolm Fraser jumped on the phone this morning to call ABC local radio in Melbourne to attack Australia's draconian anti-terrorism laws."

Also "...according to Fraser, the fear campaign has been so successful that the Labor party is “too scared” to debate the draconian rules and it was “all the more of a disgrace” that the legislation had bilateral support." While these comments are in relation to the strawmen terrorists in Australia, they further illustrate the coercive nature of some of the key leaders within the Government.

The Howard Government's trustability was torn assunder when the electorate was lied to in relation to Sievx, weapons of mass destruction, interest rates and medicare. Who in their right mind believes that the Howard government is working on their behalf as far as Industrial Relations are concerned.

Howard and his ilk are out of touch with real life...just talk to the checkout chick at your local supermarket; the service station employee; the truck driver; the meat worker- tell me, what power do they have when their employer, say Woolies, or Lindsay Fox says, no more penalty rates, work more hours, forget sick pay, etc ? The growth in jobs is for casual and contract jobs - not full time secure jobs. And as far supplementing your income with social security - get real, when every dollar earned reduces benefits. We will have an army of the working poor, who work hard or at a number of jobs at poor conditions and pay for years, just to make ends meet and never get ahead. Their children will inherit their parent's endless drudgery as they will not attain or afford a proper education. Just look at the US - check out any major city and see the army of poor in trailer parks, on the streets - Is this all our country can aspire to ? Is this what our Government has reduced us to ?

The new Industrial Relations legislation will catapult us back to the 1880s. Already current regulations are not adequately protecting workers; anybody who thinks otherwise is in a fools paradise. The challenge is for proponents of the new Industrial Relations to show where deregulation of a market has been of benefit.

Mr Howard is not governing on behalf of a significant proportion of the electorate despite his claims. Those with high mortgages must be very concerned about what is occuring at present in relation to individual work place contracts. Apart from poorer pay that these contracts represent; benefits such as sick leave, long service leave, and other entitlements will be lost. Already workers have been forced into signing contracts where they virtually become sub contractors but are treated like PAYE workers. This is not academic, it has started. Mr Howard's latest tax benefits were miserable for the lowest paid workers.

Why don't people realise that when we run a balance of payments deficit of over 7% of GDP it means that the general standard of living in Australia has to be reduced significantly?

Ant said: "This is the coercise style of government we have come to expect when the Coalition Government deals with the States".

There are no non-coersive governments. All governments are coersive by definition. I only pay my taxes because they will lock me up otherwise. If threatening to lock people up isn't coersive I don't know what is

QUOTE: just talk to the checkout chick at your local supermarket; the service station employee; the truck driver; the meat worker- tell me, what power do they have when their employer, say Woolies, or Lindsay Fox says, no more penalty rates, work more hours, forget sick pay, etc?

Lindsay Fox and Woolies are big employers. However there are plenty of other employers in the market place.

Taking Woolies as an example. When consumers (who individually are small and diffuse) negotiate with Woolies then get a good deal on groceries. Otherwise they would trade cash for groceries somewhere else. We long ago got over the notion that grocery prices need to be regulated due to the "excessive" market power of Woolies.

Its the same on the employment side of the equation. Workers (who individually are small and diffuse) negotiate with Woolies and get a good deal on wages. Otherwise they would trade effort for cash somewhere else. We should have long ago gotten over the notion that wage prices need to be regulated due to the "excessive" market power of Woolies