Des Moore fails to make a case that 2 million Australians are looking for low paying jobs returning an income between the $11K welfare payment and the $25K minimum wage. It is an assertion devoid of merit similar to the Federal Govt. assertion that thousands of new jobs will be created when employers obtain the ability to terminate unfairly. I suspect the agenda here is to have the thousands of Australians currently struggling on the minimum wage, to struggle a bit harder.

I agree with the claim of "Gutless Reform", but in the complete opposite direction of Des Moore. It disgusts me that politicians seem to make policy decisions with only their and their allies interests at heart. Industrial relations changes are being made under a liberal philosophy of 'choice', but as an employee on the bottom rung (and a full-time student), it is hard to envisage what 'choice' I have under such a lazzez faire system. Further, I don't want anyone to tell me that the changes are for the economic betterment of Australia, as profits will be reduced if a workplace is being more regularly turned over, and staff are trying to work out how they are going to pay their bills instead of concentrating on their work. Sure, there may be profits, but I have a gut feeling they won't end up in my pocket, and even if they do, I'll lose out through inflation.

Timmy83

Yours is the most refreshingly innocent comment I have read in these forum pages in ages. Your not amongst friends here Timmy, except for myself of course. You have “accidentlied” into the propaganda department of the Liberal Party. They pride themselves of their sophistication, but really , its all in their own mind. You are beginning to comprehend even at your young age, that in Australia there are two basic groups. One group inherits their wealth and status from Daddy.
They believe that such wealth is deserved and thus, with the deserving status comes automatically, intelligence. In addition to their status comes the automatic right of education. Not just any education. The best Daddy can afford. You see Timmy everything has a price. So a measure of intelligence in any objective sense is not applicable to them. They simply deserve the breaks. In short Timmy, their crowning jewel is their inherited right to RULE.
Oh, I must be fair here Timmy83. It is not to say they do not pretend to have the necessity to work for it. Son or Daughter may often be seen slumming it on the odd shift at Mc Donald’s. They are easy to pick though Timmy. There is a certain look about desperation that these folk instinctively recognize and recoil from. That trait is passed on too. You will notice the same reaction with Factory management, Bank managers (have you tried for a loan while in receipt of social security)? And the list goes on. But I am sure you know the point I am getting at.
Then of course Timmy83, there are the rest of us. Well , sounds like you know where that’s at.Only honesty amongst thieves Timmy83.

Is there for honest poverty
that hangs his head and all that………
the coward slave we turn aside
we do be pure for all that……(Howard and co)
and all that and all that
their tinsel show for all that….(Howard and co)
but the honest man though all so pure
is king of men for all that………….(The rest of us )
…………Robby Burns

Diver dan I thought I 'accidentified' (or whatever) into the realm of union denial when i read your post. If it wasn't for conservative governments in this country the economy would be in ruins. Now before you rant and rave about how unfair everything is, I'd like to point a few things out.

Firstly the Howard government stood up to militant unionism from the word go-most notably by backing Corrigan on the wharves. Anybody would have thought the world was ending. However in effect all Howards was doing was preparing the wharves for increased global competition. For example in Asia containers were being unloaded at four times the rate in Australian ports-despite lower pay, obsolete equipment, poorer training, and a lesser working environment. Explain how this was unfair? It would have been more unfair if the government had left Australian wharves to rot due to union stoppages that had nothing to do with workers rights and everything to do with factional consolidation in the labour party.

Secondly nobody should live in poverty in this country (except perhaps for the mentally ill).Welfare is more than enough to put rooves over heads, and food in mouths. If people want more all they have to do is work for it-jobs are everywhere! Working is exactly what the industrial reforms will encourage. Private enterprise can grow if it isn't too frightened to employ people when conditions are right. The unions are only against this because they can't stand the idea of not being able to manipulate industry.

Finally to the 'innocent' university student above. Working while at university will be the best thing you ever did- i thought i was doing it tough at university while I worked but becoming full time in the 'real world' is far harder. It is unfortunate that not everybody can earn $100k a year but that is the way it is. It is unclear if it's fair but that's life. One thing has been made clear though-if I work hard and don't whinge about how tough life is nobody is going to sack me.

Diver Dan, working hard wont save u from the sack. Just ask the 1,400 hard workers about to be sacked at GMH in Adelaide. Seems they have produced to much and have to go. As for the antics of Mr Corrigan, i recall even his own family distanced themselves from his actions. Diver Dan the rich desire the working poor, come up for air and work it out.

wre

Why on earth should mentally ill people live in poverty?

I have been a mental health nurse since 1978. I have seen the sadness and poverty of long term sufferers of mental illness. It is shameful. It is degrading. It is sad. It is abhorrent. It is not fair. It is an enditement of our society. It is tragic. It is unforiveable.

Kay

kalweb I totally agree with you. It is because Australias welfare system is so lax and gives handouts to able bodied young people who would prefer to sit around than contribute to society, that the people who really need our help (eg the mentally ill) miss out.

As for GM in Adelaide- the new industrial reforms do not make any difference to the plight of our workers. That is a sad symptom of just how tough the global market is. Perhaps another reason why Australians need to wake up, and take proactive steps to ensuring the work force and small business can compete.

Instead of sitting aroung whinging about how tough life is in Australia (in comparison to the rest of the world!?), and how unfair global competition is, the workforce should be looking to savvy, aggresive people like Corrigan to lead them through. Far preferable to any ACTU secretary with loads more political ambition than social conscience.

Wre, why do you attack a man like Combet who is a voice for the needy, whilst championing the likes of Corrigan who represents the greedy. I have always found the biggest whingers to be the wealthy. This country has added $3billion to its gross domestic product in the last decade, with very little going to workers. Australian workers should not compete with Bangladesh because its a race to the bottom they cannot win. A decent society shares its wealth.

WORKERS:
You want to know how kind and understanding is the Liberal Government?
Step back in time to the 60's and 70's. Drift back to Vietnam. Remember that "War" ( remember that slaughter, three million). Smell the charred bodies, listen ...for the screams of dying women and children, fleeing on fire with napalm clinging to their emaciated bodies. The sights of dead children, their little bodies blown to pieces by machine gun. Mauled upon by dogs. Go there. Or.............A new theatre has opened around the corner......Saturday matima............Iraq. The same old bombs, the same old napalm the same old machine guns.....New foe..........Same old Liberal party.......enjoying the same old games with the same old friends and telling the same old lies
For the workers………what chance?

This Post is from a retired farmer but still a director, who has never had to work for a boss besides a bank manager. Also in his retirement he has gained a degree with honours in International Relations. Also in his studies he has learnt about the true meanings of classic liberalism and the free market, with the realisation that both terms mean a free go for the master not the underling. A free go for the wheeler-dealer or middle-man and not the little retailer or store-keeper. Also from one who remembers the Great Depression, it was the strength of battling farmers joining together and not the more smart-arse clique groups who won relief for the growers.

There is an old saying that in certain enterprises if the owners don't get together they can be knocked out one by one, as is happening with many Australian smallholders like our dairy farmers, right now.

Maybe we can learn from the French who still believe in agrarian socialism, a type of socialism that has historically worked for small growers and which might also work well for small business, especially as that rotten term, get big or get out, has scared many out, anyhow.

Just a suggestion, but with governments encouraging only the getting together of the big units, corporatism, there is only the crumbs left for the little units. Also our leaders should be warned, that if they do not encourage the little units, the big-time believers might find themselves run out of power quicker than they can imagine.

Well said Des.

The responses to this article are quite pathetic. Instead of confronting the argument with facts... the typical ignorant lefties have come up with the "but you're evil" defence.

Of course not everybody would want a job on $11 to $25k/year.. but currently it is illegal to have such a job. Making jobs illegal does not help the unemployed. Using the debating tactics of the left (crying "you're evil") I can only conclude that you hate poor people and you want them to starve to death. Shame! SHAME!

Incomes for the poorest people in Australia have increased over the past 10 years. Fact. Labour market deregulation would improve the economy. Fact. Higher productivity leads to higher wages. Fact. Inflation has nothing to do with this and will not be impacted. Fact. Labour market deregulation will lead to more jobs. Fact. What is it about the left that makes them so alergic to facts?

Well said JH. The left hates facts because their existence means the left has to take a position, and stand by it. Obviously this never happens. Many Australians don't emphatically like Howard but at least he knows what he stands for, and pursues it.
As shown in the above theatrics the left would love Iraq to become another Vietnam, and they would love another depression. If for no other reason than to bash the right. Afterall the left has proven incompetent handling every portfolio that matters, so what is left for them to do but hope for the failure of the right?
I run down men like Combet (and women like Macklin) because I don't believe the ACTU stands for the workers. Instead it stands as a hopelessly ineffective PR machine working for the ALP. The Tasmanian election debacle showed this. Those workers cottoned on pretty quickly to the fact the left had abandoned them...
While on the topic of unions let's look at education-another portfolio the ALP stuffed. How many children of ALP MP's are blue collar workers? Very few-most of them are out organising protests at Woomera as 'student union leaders'. Now that's delivering services to the students isn't it?
The agrarian comments above were informed, and interesting. Perhaps groups of farmers forming their own corporations is the way to go. Wouldn't it be nice to show the defeatist left a little bit of Aussie grit, and enterprise.

Fact--AWA provide lesser income and conditions than Awards. Fact-- The argument that minimum wage increases cost jobs, has never withstood scrutiny. Fact-- This Federal Govt. has argued agaist every minimum wage increase whilst in power.Fact--Minimum wage earners would be $2K+ a year worse off if the Gov. could prove its arguements in the AIRC. Fact-- Workers dont get a choice about entering AWA's.Fact--Most AWA are pattern agreemants, and no negotiation takes place with an employee.Fact-- The Gov. believes that it is ok for workers to be dismissed unfairly. Fact--There was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Fact-- There were no children overboard. I could go on, we on the Left are happy to discuss the FACTS.

Fact - It is currently very easy to dismiss a worker on the most spurious of claims - without the new reforms. I know, it has happened to me.

Fact - The means to sack people w/out fair reason will create increased staff turnover. There is no evidence to suggest that it will create MORE jobs. Interestingly with increased staff turnover, training costs will increase for employers - hardly rational nor economic.

Fact - Welfare is insufficient to cover mortgage, food, travel and clothing expenses. It is also a horrific, demoralising treadmill.

Fact - The people in favour of IR reforms tend not to be unemployed, underpaid or people in touch with the reality of what these reforms really mean - ergot they are not effected by these changes therefore feel free to pontificate from afar.

Fact - caring about people does not necessarily make a person left wing or even right wing - just want the world to be a fairer place.

Finally something we all agree on. The world isn't fair, and caring about people isn't monopolised by the left or right. What we don't agree on is the fact that the ALP and Australian unions do nothing to help those they supposedly care so much about, and don't have the intestinal fortitude or intellectual talent to come up with any sollutions. Instead the left mounts exasperating campaigns against clearly beneficial programmes such as work for the dole.

It's already an unbackable bet that the left will oppose Turnbull's new tax proposals. Now there's a man with talent and surprise, surprise he's rich! He didn't get their because of any silver spoon either, but hey he's already the left's favourite tall poppy. Now back to facts. (a)welfare payments in Australia constitute a larger proportion of the GDP than in any other country. (b)Australia is the highest taxed nation in the developed world. (c) 2+2=4...

Larger tax cuts are far preferable to increasing welfare payments any way you look at it. Economically different skills are valued at different levels by the market. Australia is fast risking losing those with highly valued skills because as a nation we ask them to contribute too much to the welfare of people who for whatever reason stopped pulling their weight. Economically this is unsustainable, and will only lead to the lower income earners of society being worse off.

Wre,do u think the Hardie asbestosis sufferers think the unions are useless,i dont believe Hardies share that view. I am sure Hardies wish you were right (pardon the pun). However you have me convinced by your clever arguements. Lets get rid off all those pesky laws that protect employees. Most of those asbestosis victims would have died of starvation years ago if Hardies hadnt employed them.

I would rather we paid a welfare subsidy to people on low wages instead of paying it to people who are not working at all. I would support a significant reduction in the minimum wage because I believe it would create new jobs. Jobs that are currently unviable.

I agree with Des Moore and John Humphreys

Terje, Have you any credible evidence you can share with us concerning your beliefs, that an army of wage slaves would be good for the nation. What are those jobs? Cleaning your shoes?

Hedgehog nobody is talking about huge wage reductions, or massive tax cuts. What must be advocated is the striking of an equilibrium because at this stage one doesn't exist. Instead we have industrial relations agenda dominated by union thuggery, and a tax system that is difficult to negotiate, but easy to rort. By the way the people rorting it most effectively are usually the richest so your assertions that it is that demographic driving this push for reform is not accurate.
As usual the Howard haters are seizing on all the popular catch words, and clouding the debate with semantics/nonsenses. For instance I'm still waiting on your answer to how Australia being the highest tax and welfare state in the world will provide ANY benefits to ANYBODY in the long run!? Instead of dismissing this obvious problem sarcastically as a 'clever argument', why not come up with some answers?
As for your James Hardy argument it is laughable. If the unions were so concerned about asbestosis why did it take them decades to enter the fray? Answer: because they had nothing to gain politically from doing so.

Wre,The Unions have campaigned against asbetosis for over 30 years. Nowhere have i ever suggested that our tax system is perfect, many of Turnbulls proposals have merit and are certainly worthy of debate. The Federal Gov. is through the IR reforms proposing massive wage cuts. You may wish to kid yourself, but dont try to kid me. As to your baseless comments regarding Union "thuggery" i suggest u take a cold shower. I conclude by repeating -- the biggest whingers in our society are the wealthy, to much is never enough for them, the trickle down affect is a myth.

Hedgehog,

Can you point to any evidence that shows that beating your children will result in them becoming taller adults?

Or is it only me that has to answer fanciful questions unrelated to what was actually said.

Regards,
Terje

most of those arguing that free market forces in the labour market even if it leads to low wages are living in cloud cuckoo land and practice voodoo economics.

1. low wage jobs lead to less capital investment
2. less capital investment leads to lower productivity
3. lower productivity over time means business goes bust

Under Howard's huge push for deregulation of labour market there has been slowdown in productivity increases

Continual growth is dependant on increasing productivity.

There are two ways to increase productivity either lower costs or increase output for the same cost

The Howard and Des Moore way is to create an army of low paid and low skilled workers. Productivity gains under this system is marginal and cannot compete with other nations that embark on the alternative strategy of capital investment which leads to significant jumps in productivity.

The down side of the capital investment strategy is continual economic dislocation for groups of workers, to compensate society needs to ensure it has a process of allowing equitable access to new skills development and support during these transitional periods.

The focus on the enterprise as the driver of economic development has led to underinvestment in skills development for the nation and we are now bracing for capacity constraints that wll undermine our nation's future.

But hey why do you need to plan for an industry or nation, the market will fix it won't it.

All you practioners of voodoo economics can go back to sticking pins in your Greg Combet dolls, I wish that is all you would do because the economic garbage you are spouting has the potential to unravel 20 years of economic reform to modernise the nation.

Slasher

Nicknames such as Slasher and Redneck say a lot. Freud would have had a field day - says all. Do you really think that very ordinary, everday people such as me, are lacking neurones?

Cheers
Kaay

kalweb,
i enjoyed you masterful and insightful contribution to labour market analysis. I am sure that you used all your neurones in your contribution. The problem with people who read textbooks without understanding them is they then try and over analyse normal everday events. Sometimes someone might want to eat a banana because they simply like them, they do not need to have a phallic fixation.
Likewise someone's nickname may be steeped in a historic setting for a national sport or past time something that Freudian analysis will overlook. Then again often people who read textbooks have an intellectual arrogance without understanding.

It was very interesting to watch John Howard on the 7:30 report last night. Every attempt to justify the benefits of his "industrial reform" for the Australian workers was a complete failure. I think he has completely failed on the following points:

1. Australian workers will have more rights and will be able to better bargain and defend their rights under AWA?

NO! Australian workers will have a take it or leave it option when offered a job by the employer. AWA signed between employer and the worker is the contract that will dictate what the worker can and can not do with an automatic rubber stamp from the Howard government... Bargaining for better rights or better conditions imposed unfairly on them by AWA contract will be close to impossbile for a regular, working/middle class Australian workers.

2. Austrlain workers will not loose out on any current benefits and will have a choice on whether going with AWA or the present arrangement.

No! The employer will decide what is relevant and what kind of working arrangements will exist for their workers. AWA, a contract which dictates employer's conditions will become a new standard and the employees will have no choice but to accept that.

3. Workchoices are simpler and better than the Industrial Relation laws, which existed in Australia for decades.

No! Workchoices is a government rubber stamp for the employers to impose regulations on employees through AWA. The new deregulation has more similarities with "Master/Servants act" of the 19th century.

Thankfully, I think Howard government is a master of its own demise. The real war they are waging is not against the unions, but against the Australian workers and there is a limit to how much the Australian workers will take...