I do not believe that SWilkie meant that Australian’s deserve better than Asian workers when he made the comment quote “We cannot force our workers to compete with the frequently substandard employment conditions of our Asian neighbours”. This was more a statement of fact (existing & verifiable) that Asian workers are forced to work in conditions that their counterparts in any OECD country would deem unacceptable. This is not to say that they did not deserve better.

Its whether you accept that global corporations should be able to circumvent national labour laws and operate using cheap labour in underdeveloped countries at enormous costs to the environment and social structures, (all of which are externalised) or whether we should have globalisation of basic rights to balance the other deregulations which have occurred in the last 25 years.

I do not see anything racist in SWilkie's comment and I am concerned to see any statement that might discourage open dialog and exchange of diverse ideas.

MOLLY (and Ranier)

I am ALWAYS looking for a party which will truly represent the interests of all Australians (within a Christian framework, but you know this already) So, I have serious issues with the Coalition, and Serious Issues with Labor, Dems and Greens don't even rate in my view.

Labor's track record on protecting us from the cheap slave labor countries is pretty much ZERO. They sold off huge public assets, Recognized CHINA,- they are in bed with the big end of town as much as the Coalition. They might just be in bed with different big enders.

I campaign as best I can for solutions to these problems, and I don't 'blame the workers' (I don't have much sympathy for those who think the world owes them a living though) but I DO blame ==> opportunistic, short term thinking 'we will get control of the union at any price' lamentably irresponsible left wingers who pander to the greed of workers with unsustainable promises .. bribing them, until the company decides its not worth it and shuts down and relocates to Indonesia or China... duh, how smart was the greed then ? Go to Bendigo, look at the hollow shell of Mayfair Hams, a HUGE complex, rotting by the day, empty. Also, find out what the union had in place .. 'continuous card game' etc etc

I also blame the TOP end of town, with its ugly obscene packages for CEO's etc, In fact, I blame our own human hearts. "The heart is desperately wicked .. who can know it" (bible) and what we need is repentance from top to bottom, and a good close read of Acts chapter 2:42-47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&version=31

and especially ==>2nd Chronicles 7:13 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land

Without life under God, we will have perpetual 'us/them' and greed will continue to reign, as it does now.

Interesting article and discussion. I have two comments.
The first is re deaf2thebeat's comment that in publicly funded enterprises (like the arts) there are too many administrators and hardly any artists. While this may be true, it is equally true in private industry, these days. In my business, we now have more staff in our finance departments than in actual production and this is not because production is automated, but because people who can do such work are expensive, and because of the current obsession with measuring and accounting for everything, even things that can't be counted, like creativity. We now operate with skeleton permanent staff and call in casuals (we call them freelancers) when we have to. There are now vastly more chiefs and administrators than indians.
Second, I agree with Swilkie that, instead of further deregulating the workplace, we should be pouring money into education, r&d and building our skills base. That's what the Irish did, and look at them now, from basketcase to powerhouse in 10 years!
Of course, we are doing the opposite, making education more expensive and much harder for many people to access.
Clever country? Not so you'd notice.

It is clear that very few contributors have actually ever started a business. Which is possibly one of the reasons that they all sound like politicians - full of theory, but well short on practicality.

Fact One: protectionism isn't the answer. It only serves to protect unprofitable (in world terms) industries. Whether it is the US raising tariffs against Chinese textile imports or Europe subsidising its farmers to keep out foreign vegetables, it can only afford limited local security, for a limited time. One reason we need to keep giving African nations tons of money is because we (the developed countries) keep finding new ways to protect our own industries.

Fact Two: (I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw this one) advocating interference with foreign economies will not wash, as in "[w]e really need to be campaigning for reform throughout the global market - eg a living wage for Chinese workers and the outlawing of child labour." One man's perceived exploitation (working in a Nike factory) is another's daily bread (working in a Nike factory). Mandating that Nike should pay US wages will only result in the disappearance of that factory. Who benefits then? A few interfering goody-two-shoes in their comfortable armchairs in Carlton. Well done, people, I hope you sleep well.

Fact Three: Industrial Relations laws are not set up to make people feel good, but to reflect reality. So saying stuff like "The real (negative) impact of the proposed changes will become evident when the inevitable downturn in the economy occurs. Just watch employers dump staff and cut wages and conditions and the workers won't be able to do much about it. Unions and the industrial commission will be shut out." is likely to be accurate. But tell us please, if there is less money in the system ("inevitable downturn in the economy") how on earth can we imagine that we will be able to pay the same number of people the same amount of money?

There are iniquities and inequities in our system, for sure. But don't close your eyes to simple economic realities.

Pericles, with no intent to convert your views -
I’m an Industrial Engineer/manager who has run his own business. I’ve also spent many years as a humanist activist & occasional writer. I have working knowledge of the plastics/packaging industry & the problems faced by this typical example.
Protectionism is definitely not the answer, merely a tool to prop up industries (read employers) while a strategy is implemented. We don’t have a real, ‘forward thinking’ strategy, other than screwing the people who comprise this nation. All democracies, even ours, understand the term ‘regressive’ to mean the lowering of overall social wellbeing & this is what the Liberal party is offering.
We have been interfering, one way or another, with the activities of other nations for around 235 years now. International trade is one of the pillars of society & should be promoted intelligently & ethically. We lack control over the activity of multinational companies who wish to employ away from their country of origin. Large international employers such as Nike should be convinced to apply a plan for acceptable international working conditions. We should have import restrictions on multinationals of this type. We should not restrict imports from ‘source’ countries & should subsidise imports from smaller, third-world manufacturers. We should apply a ‘value system’ to international trade.
If we are to suffer a downturn in the economy, something will trigger it. I think we’re actually quite balanced at the moment & don’t need the Libs offerings. The public are starting to agree…
The reality is that our economy is actually quite healthy & that we should be setting plans for a competitive future & spending on it. Nailing the worker right now does not make sense.

It's about time that economic rationalism was seen for what it is, a fundamentalist religion. I'm tired of trying to debate the sociopathic arguments of the faithfull as if they were open to reasoned discussion; it's like arguing with the Jehovahs' Witness. Thousand yard stare. Foam flecked lips. Taliban.

Don't waste your time, concentrate your efforts and thinking instead on how to cut this cancer from our society while we still have one to operate on.