Interesting piece, although it sounds a bit like sour grapes to me!

1. Australia gave John Howard this majority. So you can't really complain if he uses it.

2. Maybe, it is a good thing that a lot of much needed reforms can now take place without endless debates and bluster from the left. Is it not a good thing that we finally have a government that can get on with job?

3. By 2007 everyone will have forgotten the IR and terrosim debates and be getting on with whatever the issues of the day are. Hopefully these will not be suicide bombings in Australia or Australia's economy falling further behind the rest of the world. If so, we would have John Howard to thank for this.

Well, we perhaps may not complain when they USE it, but we sure should when they ABUSE IT. And to me the days-rather-than-weeks senate enquiries we have been seeing are an abuse of power. And the insistance on everything being through before Christmas- hasn't Mr Howard checked the electoral laws? He will still be able to be around until at least 2007. There is no need to rush through major pieces of legislation, it only annoys people. The senate is meant to take its time, think about each bylaw and subsection. Rushing things will just result in badly worded laws which are to nobody's advantage.

I wonder if Senator Evans has asked himself why, at the last election, Australian voters gave the Coaltion a Senate majority. I don't think he would have, as the ALP is too self-obsessed to worry about the electorate and its beliefs.

It's just possible that more Australians are growing tired of the meddling of the Senate and balance of power being in the hands of 2% whackos like the Democrats and the Greens.

If the Senate is 'unworkable' simply because the majority of Australian voters vote the same as they do for the lower house, it might be time to think of getting rid of it and removing the overpaid snouts good only for running interferrence.

Of course you can complain if he uses it GW; we are, for the time being, free to complain about anything we like.

And the issue is not about the left and right of politics; each side when in power has to contend with blustering and debating from the other side - the so called hindering of opposition is oneof those checks and balances that has provided for relative stability over the years.

Judging from your throw away line re the left I assume you are of a conservative bent - lets assume that is the case just for the sake of argument - if the "left" had control of both houses and nationalised the medical workforce, resumed ownership of the Commonwealth Bank, telstra and the power utilities - there would be one hell of a stink from the right - are you going to sit idly by while those measures are adopted - after all they would simply be "getting on with the job".

There is enough evidence of dissent within the coalition to demonstrate that this mob are acting with undue haste and arrogance just look to the senate committe decision on Anti Terror, the number of Libs expressing concern over the refugee man made crisis,Judy Moylans dissent over the work/welfare changes - the legislation surrounding IR is not only conerning some coalition members in terms of content, it has largely been criticised as being badly drafted and technically clumsy.

There is plenty of reason to complain -

Why is it that Howard has forgotten his alleged love of the Australia of the fifties that he used to go on about so much, which he claimed made us such a great country, and his appreciation of history generally, before he got control of the Senate.
This attempt to destroy over a century of Australian democracy and belief in the importance of a reasonable standard of living for all Australians, not only those who have the means as individuals to beat the system must be overturned as a consequence of the 2007 election results, but preferably before.

Leigh states "Australian voters gave the Coalition a Senate majority"

Show me the evidence of a deliberate vote of All Australian voters to give the coalition a majority senate to then pass any of their laws without proper bipartisan review.

The recent senate committee (made upon on both Coalition and Labor senators, members) had their recommendations on the IR and terrorism laws ignored.

May I suggest you undertake a crash course in civics instead of listening to radio shock jocks. If that doesn’t work, at least admit you don’t know what you don’t know

Chris Evans, wasn't it Saint Paul who branded the senate as housing 'unrepresentative swill'? And wasn't it Saint Paul who, having so little respect for parliament, limited his appearances in the lower house?

Congratulations for serendipitously discovering democracy in parliament house. Don't be afraid, it won't bite you. See what happens when you venture out of the parliamentary dining room. Democracy was sadly missing when, with the shedding of a few tears, Bob Hawke granted about 25,000 Chinese students 'refugee' status without consultation or reference to his fellow Australians. And wasn't it the ALP that kicked out a Russian spy during the Hawke locust years? Was he a terrorist? Where was his right to a trial? Should we bring him back and pay him compensation for the ALP's lack of democracy.

The ALP won't abuse power you say. Wasn't it an ALP prime minister that retrospectively changed the law to prevent his treasurer from being charged with fraud? That's gold Mr Evans.

I do share your concerns about the senate only having ten days to scrutinise all legislation. If this timetable is not met it could interfere with the holiday season round of fact finding missions. Ahhh - Paris, Rome, Vienna, New York, London and perhaps check on the house on the La Costa d'Amalfi.

The ALP as a wellspring of all that is pure and chaste? My rheumy eyes tell me we are entering the era when we can expect to see the lamb lie down with the lion.

Chris Evans observations are correct.

I am replying to comment by 'GW'
.
"..1. Australia gave John Howard this majority. So you can't really complain if he uses it..."

I have to remind, that the Liberal Party is not voted in to power on its own majority - in a party-preferred 1st-past-the-post system, the Labor Party would easily win every election. Various other Parties give preference, or not, to the party of their choice.

"...2. Maybe, it is a good thing that ..much needed reforms can now take place without endless debates and bluster from the left. Is it not a good thing that we ..have a government that can get on with job?.."

The Left? I will remind that governments barely get in to power on more or less than 5 percentage points (this is a worldwide trend)- and it is this difference that is the hallmark of Democracy. ' Bluster' my ass.

"...3. By 2007 everyone will have forgotten the IR and terrosim debates and be getting on with whatever the issues of the day are. Hopefully these will not be suicide bombings in Australia or Australia's economy falling further behind the rest of the world. If so, we would have John Howard to thank for this..."

This is windy rhetoric.
I will remind that John Howard is simply not responsible for the security of this country - the Law Enforcement Agencies are. They work under whatever Government happens to be there, and have already the laws to carry through their agenda.
John Howard is also not ultimately responsible for the "Economy". There are larger forces at work here, too, that are constant strings of negotiations where Governments can only occassionally influence the International influence of "Economy".
Are we to turn the Australian workplace into an American system? IR reforms are a good idea - BUT NOT IN ITS PRESENT FORM, which is perhaps why having the so-called 'other 47.5%' have their influence via the senate was always the best system.

Perhaps the most effective tool for demonstrating the Caolitions current disregard for the remainder fo the senate is the continued refusal of Sen Avett to answer carefully worded questions with anything other than prepared speeches on entirely different topics, and the correspondent bluff, bluster and arrogance displayed by him.

Perhaps this could feature prominently in the advertising campaign for the next election? Personally, I feel that if the Government has nothing to hide, why would it aintain its failure to answer simple questions regarding this purportedly fair and even lagislation?

I truly believe that a focus on Mr Avett's behaviour (instead of Costello's, or as well as) could in fact pay dividends - because to the majority of the public his continued refusal to answer questions in a full and frank manner is annoying and condescending - two things the public will not appreciate.

I agree that the Government is doing all it can to push through legislation without proper scrutiny. But I also suggest that the Labor Party's past actions are also not open to real scrutiny.

A number of the "conventions" now in place and now being torn into shreds by this government were put in place only over the past 9 years while the Labor Party, out of office in the lower house, still had the numbers with the minor parties in the Senate to play political games. And games were the sole objective of most of those "conventions".

For example, let's look at most of the committee inquiries and reports over the past 9 years. Well, surprise, surprise, Labor and the minor parties, forming the majority on each committee, invariably come out with a majority report which is ALWAYS critical of the government. Never has there been a suggestion that the government is right about anything. And when information and submissions to the Senate don't suit the opposition, they simply ignore the submissions. So, exhaustive documentary evidence that Labor views about, say, levels of poverty in Australia or the incidence of violence were seriously flawed and overstated, just got ignored by Labor and the other maddies.

No wonder most of these "valuable" Committee reports are equally flawed and incorrect. The basic mission for 9 years in the Senate has been to not let facts get in the way of bashing the government. So, now we should be outraged because you don't like the majority reports from the Senate committees? Give me a break.

And how about dealing with being representative of the Australian electorate instead of giving jobs to the boys like Mr Ludwig.

When you clean up your own act, I might be impressed by your poncing about. Until then, go and find something useful to do with your time - you've got two more years of total futility and impotence to put up with.

Who of you out there voted for conservative MP's or senators either as a first or second preference? I put them last.

You've only got yourself to blame if you're complaining.

Yep, we got a tyranny of the majority. But as a minority individual, I'm already familiar with that in most aspects of my life. I just have to get used to it and make the best of what I can in a hostile environment.

I can't believe how many people are complaining about the Coalition majority considering how obvious it is that a lot of them voted conservative in the first place!

Some argue that they didn't vote for what Howard is doing. Well... he's hardly going to remain moderate with the majority he's been given now is he. And besides - we had been spoon-fed more than enough crap over the 8 years prior to the last election to give any credibility to the verbal diarrhoea this pathological liar dribbles. The greatest trick Howard ever pulled was convincing the working-class that he actually cared about them.

And to all those Australians who voted for the evil they knew because of apathy and complacency - remember this... All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. A government unchecked is a government corrupt.

We’ve taken for granted the fact that we were the "lucky country"; only appreciating what we’ve had now that we’re losing it.

I'm not saying "Everyone, vote Labor", but whoever’s voted in next time - let's make sure that they don't have control of the senate. My proposal: Anyone who's a swinging voter or is not sure or simply doesn't care - just vote against the Coalition! They'll get in anyway. And I'm sure they will for many more years to come. But at least this way there will be a senate to scrutinize their sometimes radical ideology.

I only hope this country has learnt their lesson from all this. That way, the rights that we lose; along with the values and the way of life that we've held dear for so many years – won't entirely be in vein.

I disagree.

Howard has abused his power and is enforcing ultra-conservative laws that were hidden behind the parties’ name. The Australian public though dumb enough to vote him in again gave him a majority. He will enforce US style IR reforms that will reduce the number of full time jobs and put disabled and single parents into work. While Costello reduces tax and we loose our healthcare and welfare system.

All the time he implements fascist terrorism laws with no opposition in parliament as if we are facing a threat not of our own creating. It's poor policy.

He will soon implement his electoral reforms that will attack democracy but disallowing people who just turned 18 to vote, by cutting the enrolment date to when he calls the election.

He has flown his true colors and will be as electable as the NSW Fascist liberals. If that’s a word.

Chris Evans has conveniently forgotten what happened during the Hawke-Keating years. Whenever Labor wanted to sell Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank they did so with the support of the opposition. Similarly when Keating wanted to reform IR and introduce Enterprise Bargaining he did so with the support of the opposition.

In contrast the Coalition Government have had to introduce reforms without any support from the Labor opposition. Apart from changes to boost security Labor has opposed, opposed, opposed every Government attempt to reform. Little wonder then that when given a majority in both houses by voters at the last election, the Coalition is using it to obtain the reforms it believes are needed for the benefit of the country.

Malcolm Fraser had a majority in both houses for most of his time in Government. Yet he wasted the opportunity by not changing the ecomonically damaging initiatives of the disasterous Whitlam Government. John Howard is not going to similarly waste his opportunity. As a result he will be remembered historically as a courageous reformer prepared to take political risks for the benefit of Australia.

Having been appointed regional branch manager for the War For Profit gang, the PM must have thanked his lucky stars when control of the Senate fell into his lap.

After all, given the crimes that have been committed against the Iraqis, it was either the high road to comfort in a gated estate, or the low road to a gulag via the Hague. No wonder he has hit the ground running. The sedition laws will make a very handy knuckleduster against people like me. Nice one!

The distribution of preferences that gave the Coalition a Senate majority has been described as a serious tactical error. Is that all there is to it? It might be a good idea to put the microscope on that little-mentioned mistake.

Cui bono. Never stop asking, "Who benefits"?

Sniggid, John Howard will be remembered as a liar, and rightly so, because thats what he is.

One party having control of both houses is a danger, and this article has rightly pointed out its disadvantages. Even a strong Liberal supporter I spoke to soon after the election was worried about it!

Chris, I understand your position, however there is only one course of action that will change the situation, and that is for the ALP to get its act together. The ALP needs to develop a full set of alternative policies accross all portfolio's and go about selling them to the electorate, in order to win the next election, perhaps an internal restructure in the leadership is also required, but if so it must be done quickly, to give a new leader time for the public to become aquainted with her. The ALP needs to sell,sell,sell, after decideing on policies that will benefit the majority of Australians. If the party cannot do this it will spend another 3 years from the 2007 election in the wilderness. Retoric is all very well, but policy needs to be developed, and quickly, if anything is to change for the better. I may be the odd man out, but I consider it to be the responsibility of the ALP to provide an alternative government, those of us who are your way inclined, are desperately seeking some inititave from your party, to help heal the divisions in our society.

Just an opinion from an old fella.

It can be proven that history has been changed much more by philosophers and writers than the unintellectual go-getters, who keep on making the same mistakes of history, and which has been proven more so, unfortunately more so in the beginning of our 21st century.

It seems the go-getters are at it once again, more like the 19th century when Mother Britannia ruled the roost, hundreds of thousands of colonial troops shaping a world based on the right of the Promised Lands, which Cecil Rhodes believed was out there with God's Will for the white man's taking.

We now have Pax Americana, and her Angligipholic partners pretty well at the same game, but underhandedly calling captured and financially controlled countries, simply a bid to give real freedom to these peoples by teaching them the American way.

If only we could truly believe this was not to be, but going by old imperialistic records, especially concerning control of especially important contraband like spices, tea and oil, it could be a safe bet, sadly, that what will be will be.

Bushbred,

Thanks for that! I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to hear the opinion of an “old fella” that doesn’t lean so far to the right.

I love hearing the opinions of the more moderate, open-minded people of the older generations. I think many people of the younger generations (such as me) can learn a lot from your experience.

I myself have struggled to maintain hope in the ultra-conservative revolution this county is going through at the moment. But many “old fellas” like yourself have reminded me of something that I think a lot of the younger generation need to remember: The pendulum will eventually swing the other way. It always does. Only these days, it seems to swing a lot quicker than it used to.

Howard and his supporters grin from ear-to-ear with changes like IR “reform”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it will only take another Gough Whitlam – with control of the senate – to undo it all and give back some rights to the defenceless who need them the most. While reducing the rights of the corporate bullies who beat-up on those who can't defend themselves.

"It can be proven that history has been changed much more by philosophers and writers than the unintellectual go-getters, who keep on making the same mistakes of history, and which has been proven more so, unfortunately more so in the beginning of our 21st century."

Bush is a classic example if these idiot go-getters repeating the mistakes of history. I think Redneck could take a leaf from you book. It's these intellectual, academic, "trendy lefties" that he despises so much - completely unaware that if it wasn't for them, he could be living in a world with no freedom; a world where the richest 1% rule with an iron-fist in an Orwellian society.

Senator, as Kevin and Sniggid pointed out, the Hawke reforms benefitted from Coalition support. Over the last nine years, the Senate opposition has consistently blocked or damaged legislation from a government which has now been elected four times with a generally consistent platform. You yourself say that "The Howard Government was forced to compromise on the GST and Native Title, while it was rebuffed on Telstra and industrial relations." All long term Coalition policies on which Senate opposition led to poorer outcomes. If Telstra is sold now, it might be for $12-15bn less than when its full sale was blocked - thanks a lot, Chris!

Howard had to wait for eight years as Prime Minister before he could proceed with long-proposed policies without a wrecking Senate. It's time! But he's also cautious, he reads the runes and he knows there's an election in 2007. To say that he is unfettered because of the Senate majority is nonsense.

I'm a former ALP supporter who was fortunate enough to work with an excellent Prime Minister and Ministers - Hawke, Button, Kerin, Dawkins, Willis (and with Keating and Evans, who had some merit, many flaws), and talked to one of the best, Walsh. Where are their like today? Where are the good policies which made Canberra in the Hawke years such a good place to work? Senator, if you want to put pressure on and constrain Howard, I suggest you look to making the ALP electable

Voltx,

I agree with you. But the point of my first post is that complacent Australians need to be aware that what we are seeing is what the “Liberal” party has stood for a long time. They completely contradict their party’s name and should actually be called The Conservative Party – a bunch of “oxymorons” if you ask me.

I’m just amazed though, at how surprised some Australians are at the Liberal party’s actions and abuse of power. When I for one, have always known what they were all about.

Whether or not they supported them, people would laugh at me in a patronising manner whenever I spoke out against the “Liberal” party; accusing me of being an alarmist or propagandist.

…They’re not laughing now.

Everything I said would happen is happening.

Had the ALP been different things would not have worked out as they have.
If the ALP discards the unelectable clods that they laughingly call 'polititians' and get some one who is not from 'Acadame'[which is another planet] or a 'Unionist'[second rock from Academe] but who has some real intelligence and a desire to better Australia then maybe they will get a chance next time.
Australians know a crock when they see one, we want a strong opposition,not a bunch of would be's.
It is up to the ALP.

I wonder whether the liberals would hold the majority of the senate if Asutralians could simply vote on that issue alone...

Posted by gw, Thursday, 1 December 2005 10:51:17 AM
Unquote.

By 2007 everyone will have forgotten the I.R. and terrorism debates and getting on with whatever the issues of the day are.

YOU WISH. For what it's worth, my prediction for this, will be that the workers of Australia will NEVER forget what's happened this year regards I.R. Legislation, and if you think they'll forget it, obviously you can't be a worker, as then you'd be only too aware of the dangers this Legislation poses upon you in the course of earning an income.

As for the label of SOUR GRAPES, so it maybe, however the Labour party doesn't have to look any further then the next mirror, to find who's responsable for their poor showing at the last election,(fielding such poor candidates ensures their defeat in any election) thus the situation this country finds itself in today, the Labour party carries a large percentage of the responsability.
Their failure to read the electorate and to respond to it's desires instead of their own Party desires has been their downfall.
It's also very apparent, the Party faithful HAVEN'T LEARNT A THING from this experience, evidanced by placing a two time looser as leader, thus virtualy guaranteeing the status quoe at the next election.
Makes me wonder really, who the Labour Party is supposed to be representing, sure as hell, it isn't the Australian electorate.

Sorry to break in Faustino, but you must know that most of the recent Liberal get up and go is based on Thatcherism which is said to let the real goers have a go, make the money, and let just enough trickle down to the economic slow-going underclass.

It is all about economic rationalism and extreme right-wing global capitalism, Faustino, and as you intimated in your Post, it was Bob Hawke who introduced it to Australia. But Hawke introduced it much more gently. Though his economic views were right-wing for Labor, he still had the commonsense to pursue with union backing a policy to look after the battler, and maybe even too far when he declared to bring all those in need up to at least a decent level of prosperity.

Of course it did not eventuate, as it would not in any society. But Hawke was right to think about it, as Adam Smith the father of modern capitalism thought about it. As Smith declared, because free market capitalism is based on the urge to win, it is nigh impossible to take the greed out of it. That is why Smith was one of the first social philosophers to warn that because free market capitalism only meant freedom from government for the businessman or employer, it still had not allowed much freedom for the worker. John Stuart Mill with his great essay "On Liberty" further took up the challenge.

Part Two

Of course, the above is why the Keynesian mixed economy is still regarded by many social philosophers as possibly not so monetarily successful, but far safer than free-market capitalism. It has also been far safer for the small farmer who wishes to stay small and the need for lobby groups and boards, etc, to protect the ordinary producer, who prefers to stay small, as we see the problems among our dairy farmers in Western Australia right now.

So what our modern social philosophers do tell us, is that capitalism can have more than one face or caricature. First, state or managed capitalism, as in China, and possibly Singapore, where the government can deal in a capitalist world, but the nation is far from democratic. Then we have a democratic nation with a mixed economy or a gently guided capitalism, as Australia became in answer to the Great Depression, and changed with globalisation back to right-wing market capitalism during the 1970s.

Certainly it does seem if we could believe the warnings of Max Weber, possibly the real exemplar of capitalism, that though capitalism is needed for what he terms the national “value rational”, if overdone it can negate its purpose by over-influencing the lives of those who have created it, making them like cogs in a wheel, while the real people might disappear from view. Of course, it was Ghadafi of Libya, who said that even a normal capitalistic structure can be turned into a dictatorship without much trouble.

There are so many holes in that article, I would not even attempt to fill in, and it is a typical compilation of premeditate crap: From babies overboard to Tamper, just emotional charge lies devoid of fact: Read the Senate report, and find out that ; who are the real liars and manipulators . No surprise: Labor- Greens- Democrats, large portions of the Media, all the (Pirates: Looters: Moochers) Hand in hand to create more myths for a programmed response.
So many are feed up with the simple methodology of propaganda. I can only refer to the articles author as a bigoted ignorant Moocher. When you start to put to print TRUTH and Fact mate, then maybe a little respect. You are the disseminator of such vial garbage for and of selfishness in a cloak of informed opinion, well it is not informed opinion that you espouse is it?
Perhaps the liars and the manipulators would have preferred Mark Latham as PM. Then people: you would exactly realize what rant raving lunatics are like in a more passionate violent fit of there considered reason, just as the violent treatment some have for fact finding and truth. But when you have a market with such pathological programming of vial hatred for anything not of their doing, simple things like truth hurts and serve as what a Virus would be in a computer software program, there are more than a few bugs we have to get rid of.

Faustino, bushbred; Faustino, I also agree Hawke and Keating were two of the Liberal Party's greatest Prime Ministers, old fella {bush bred} in my humble opinion, you are the most knowledgeable amoung us, and I love the information in your posts, please continue to write, you are educating all of us, and some of us are most appreciateive, your knowledge comes from experience, which a lot of people don't have, and obvious intellegence. Some rely purely upon philosophy, were as you have lived your philosophy, and found it to be sound. Those of us who are a little bit younger than yourself, learn a lot from you, as far as I am concerned, you should be awarded the VC.

Bushbred, concur with Shonga.

What I appreciate is the well reasoned rational approach you take with your posts. And the absence of name-calling - some posters should take note.

Will senate control be reversed in 2007? One can only hope; at present we have a government that more closely resembles a dictorship than at any other point in Australia's political history. What is worse, we have an opposition that (for reasons only known to itself) is complicit. While Labor lacks the numbers, surely it still has a voice?

The silence is deafening.

Gw – you succinctly express my view,
Would Chris Evans be squealing if it were a Labor with control of the Reps and Senate?
- I doubt it.

Reality is we live in a democracy where the majority did vote for the coalition, in the face of the most appalling labor alternative since Whitlam (Latham) – and having been warned by the Whitlam experience (thank goodness enough remembered), rejected that offering.

The benefits of industrial relations reform will flow before the next election, the unions will whine – but they always do – and they are not elected under any process of universal suffrage – so who cares – they are just a vested interest with diminishing influence.

Oh AdrianK – proportional representation is not any superior method of voting to first-past-the-post it is just different and subject to similar problems of imperfection. However, I would also remind you that the Senate is a proportionally represented institution and that too is coalition controlled. Regardless of the methodology it is supported by the participants and if you don’t like it – I suggest you put effort where your mouth is and stand for election.

As for the “Left” – their influence has been in continuing decline since the 1980’s – soon they will just be the thing of bad dreams and something for latter day Grimm’s to write fairy tales about.

As for Shonga’s “Heal Divisions in our society” that has never been on the labor agenda – the labor faction power brokers who run that organisation of swill peddlers have power as the only agenda and do not give a hoot for “healing”, regardless of all the pathetic rhetoric.

A word of caution, any would be ALP polly would be wise to forget trying to wring anymore mileage out of the Tampa, "asylum seekers","stolen generation" ect, we are totally fed up with the whole rigmarole of the bleeding heart syndrome.
We want someone who acts for Australians and only Australians. If this doesn't interest, go away.

bushbred, I've just seen your posts, will give them some thought and reply later. Shonga, while I think highly of Hawke, I thought (even before his appointment) that Keating was unfit to be PM, I think that the ALP's present woes began with Keating's defeat of Hawke.

Hawke always sought consensus, sometimes I thought he overdid it but it helped him to implement reforms which were (relatively) accepted and sustainable. While his feeling for consensus was genuine, when Howard acts in a similar way I think that it's from electoral caution rather than concern for consensus.

Keating was a one-man band, while Hawke appointed capable ministers (even people like Peter Walsh, who he didn't like), and let them get on with it.

I have a friend who does not have English as her first language. She had been working as a cook in a restaurant, but lost that job when the restaurant closed down. I went with her recently to a job interview. The restaurant owner needed an experienced specialist cook and she has the right ethnicity and skills. She knows what the award rate is and also knew that she had no hope whatsoever of being paid that in her industry.

The restaurant owner was a nice friendly guy who was happy to sit down and talk with us. He was busy telling her how right she was for the job, then he asked her what hourly rate she wanted. When she named a figure of $3 less than the award, with no loading for evenings/weekends etc, his attitude changed completely. She has told me that it is customary in her industry to employ people, including tourists with or without working visas, for a pittance.

Another place put out the word that they wanted her, because she has a good reputation. When she went to talk to them, they offered to start her on just over half the award rate, with a review after twelve months.

We are supposed to have a legal minimum wage system. If I did not know the above to be true, I would find it hard to believe that these employers could get away with it. What does anyone think will happen when virtually everyone can find themselves negotiating individual pay rates and conditions? Hopefully most Australians will not be prepared to take this kind of treatment like some of our "New Australians" do.

Richardson has been the downfall of labor. While it has always been a "special interest" party, it was fairly general interest. When he discovered they could win an election by buying the green vote with excessively biased promises, the rot started. They then went out looking for more special interest groups to buy, & then went even further to shore up this suport. Greens, academia, arts, aboriginal, welfare it just kept growing. They owed so much to these groups, that there was nothing left for the majority, & we, average twits, started to see this. Even my farther who was totally rusted on, had to move his vote. We may be slow, but when we see hospitals full of art work, but no nurses we start to wake up.
This worries me, because I don't want to be rusted on anywhere, but while I have this perceptoin, I have no choice.
I hate the unfair dismissal law with a passion. It forced me to sack 3 young, new staff, during their probation, when I was not sure they would become usefull. I would have given them more time, if I could have got rid of them later. I had never, as a small business manager, sacked anyone in my life. It is the worst thing I have ever had to do, but I felt I had no choice.
However I have some doubts about some of the new IR laws, & would like to have a choice at the next election, if they have gone too far. Right now I don't have that choice.
I prefer to have a majority in both houses, of either party, so they can fully implement the policy's they have been elected on, not compromised a couple of one eyed members. I may be a fool, & have it all wrong, but it took me a while to get here, & it will take a lot ot move me now, & there are a lot of others with the same view.
Phil

Rex - your missive about the chef - and all that happened under the existing system - it just shows what a farce the existing system is.

From what you say - removing the award system, in your friends case, will not make a bean of difference. Oh, did she include how much she would be paid in "cash" on the side? - that too is a common practice in that industry.

I have negotiated my own "rate" for the past 20 years, without the benefit of awards or union representation. Far from being paid "award rates" I charge mega-bucks. Am I complaining about being underpaid - no - when I negotiate I sell my skills and the unique benefits of employing me over others. Your friend has limited communication skills, I am sure I would suffer similar problems anywhere that English was not the first language, hence I choose to live in Australia. I suggest your friend might benefit by improving her communication skills, thereby improving her employment options. The responsibility for English competency in Australia is for her to resolve, not the rest of society to accommodate.

Good on Col, at least you are consistent, your usual compassionate, caring for others self. Selfish self opionated people really get my blood boiling, as if everyone was in your position, wake up and smell the roses, your bragging about your talents is annoying to the average people who rely on awards to make sure they have enough money to support a family, it may come as a schock to you, but we weren't all born nuclear scientists {thank goodness} and if you can negotiate for yourself, good, however the majority cannot. We need the assureance of awards, or the exploitation in the previous post will apply to all, except of course the indespensible amoung us like you...funny I don't remember your name mentioned in despatches, perhaps I don't read the correct newspaper, or I might actually realise how increadibly important you obviously are, a legend in your own lunchtime...

TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.

Many posters have pointed out that when either party has control of the Senate, ‘they use it to advance their party agenda’

So, what is the problem ? Simple

THE SENATE. was constituted as a ‘House of Review’ with equal numbers from all states to ensure that no state was disadvantaged by legislation.

WHAT WENT WRONG ? Also not exactly a difficult question to answer: PARTIES gained control by fielding candidates.

SOLUTION. Candidates for the senate should NOT belong to political parties ! There should be a method of selecting/nominating them which is SEPARATE from the “Party” method we currently have. In fact, while it might be a bit optimistic to say so, Political parties should be BARRED from activity in the Senate.

I can’t see this happening, because presumably we would end up with many different views even from the elected state representatives on how legislation is perceived to impact the States, this in turn will be tied to the particular interests of the individuals (or those who promoted them) concerned. So, we could end up with such disunity and squabbling it could make the whole idea untenable.
How else can we approach this without a ‘party aligned’ system ? All ideas are welcome.

CONCLUSION It seems to me that until we come up with a workable ‘non party’ aligned system for the Senate house of review, we are stuck with how things are now, and there is not a lot of value in whining about it when one party does happen to have full control.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.
Have parties= Bad, subject to abuse. or Good, can get things done?
Have Individual non party aligned reps= Unworkable ?

“REAL” SOLUTION

National revival and spiritual awakening, hearts turned to the Almighty, in Christ ! Well, yes, But, even this would be subject to the fickle nature of we humans.. resulting in a polarized community again in time. A true spiritual revival is not about ‘policy’ its about attitude and heart. Policy from such hearts will be good policy.

THE FINAL ‘real’ solution. The 2nd Coming.

Boaz,

Check my Blog for the proposed 'Family Friendly' campaign proposal.

I would actually appreciate your comments, as it requires the churches in order to be effective.

http://jezreelvalley.blogspot.com/

Welcome back

PS It is somewhat disheartening that you appear to have no options available for those that refuse to accept the existence of Jesus. Moreover, the supposed chronological support for Jesus actually being the messiah (as with most of what he is supposed to have done) is equally supportive of Shimon Bar Kochba's claim to have been the son of the star.

I'll take tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority any time.
One of the reasons Coalition has control of the Senate is because of the opposition parties constantly stifling reform.
Without a meddling Senate Telstra would have made much more than it will now, we would have a GST on everything rather than the exemptions on food which are a nightmare and we would have had a full lot of IR reform when we had a minister who could sell it well such as Abbott or Reith, rather than Andrews.

Ironically, if all these changes were so bad for the Australian public as is made out by the ALP and the 26 per cent of people who are Greens on this site, they should have let them through first up.
Then the outrage at the ballot box would have overspilled during the first, second, third term of this Govt and the good old ALP could have been elected earlier.

Then again, people might have liked the changes and the ALP would be exposed for the policy vaccuum it has become.

PS: With three year parliamentary terms, the Senate is irrelevant. Accountability comes every three years. The Senate no longer does what is supposed to do and that is represent the states - rather, it looks after minority interests at the expense of the majority. What has Tampa got to do with Tasmania or Van Nguyen with South Australia. You'll have to ask Brown and Stott-Despoja that because I don't have a clue.

t.u.s

I can relate to some of what you say, Col. I worked for many years in sales and sales management, for the most part being paid on commission. Then I started a sub-contracting business in the building trade and had to negotiate my own contracts. And at 71, I am still running a part time business from home. But I also realise that not everyone can, or has the desire to do that.

I am a strong believer in having legally enforceable conditions of employment which are fair to employees, management and owners of businesses. One of the most important of these is a minimum wage safety net. Just because some employers get away with flouting the law in this respect, this isn't a valid reason to scrap the law and return, in effect, to the law of the jungle.

Another aspect that requires adequate control is safety in the workplace. When I had the sub-contracting business, I was happy to be a member of the appropriate union. My union couldn't get me better pay, but they could help to keep the building sites safe. As far as I am concerned, safety is non-negotiable and cannot be compromised, but I know from experience that not every employer sees it that way.

Your comment about the cash economy in the restaurant trade is true in many cases, but is used mainly to cheat both the low paid employees and the taxation dept. My friend had a good job for several years, where all her wages went through the books and she paid tax.

Her spoken English is adequate for most purposes and her spelling and grammar better than some people who are born in English speaking countries. But, like many people coming from some other countries, she doesn't understand the concept of fighting for one's rights and is easy prey for unscrupulous employers.

Well, under the proposed legislation, plenty of good honest Australian workers will find that it's no good being prepared to fight for their rights, because they'll have no rights to fight for.

And thanks, Shonga, for your comments.

Sorry to disapoint you Chris but the Australian Labor Party will be in the willderness for a lot longer yet.Australians are no doubt apothetic when it comes to politics,but they have long memories.

Labours fall from grace does not need an in depth anylisis by pseudo intellectuals,or economists.You can basicaly nail it down to the following.Home loan interest rates went through the roof under Labor,Howard hoodwinked the elerctorate with his Battlers mantra,and the young people of this Country have never had it so good.Also sad but true when it comes down to it we Anglo Saxons don't like people of other ethnic stripe.Tamper comes to mind,Howard is not stupid.

I am old enough to remember when the Foreman of a work place carried a pick handle,it will take a lot more suffering of the Australian people to get the penny to drop.
PHILB

"Also sad but true when it comes down to it we Anglo Saxons don't like people of other ethnic stripe."

Speak for yourself, moron.

Speak for your self, moron

I once had a dog called Yobbo scrawny looking thing couldn.t teach it to do nothing.I decided to have its nuts removed so it couldn.t contaminate the the dogy gene pool.The Vet who was to perform the procedure went on to explain it didn't always work.So I saved my money and took the poor thing home and shot it.

So what's your point, you'd like to shoot me? You're a racist - that doesn't mean the rest of us are. In fact the very idea that we all share the same beliefs simply because of the colour of our skin is racist in and of itself.

Howard may not be stupid, but it's pretty self-evident by your poor literacy skills and your gross overestimation of your own ability to mount an argument that you are.

It's pretty rich for you to claim that Howard "hoodwinked the electorate" when it's pretty obvious that the most likely people to be hoodwinked are illiterate morons like your good self.

Yobbo by name, Yobbo by nature.
Yobbbo you just don't get it.With a pin head like you, one doesn't have to mount much of an arguement to win a point.Your own invective gives you away,and tells me all I need to know about you.

Who are you to presume I am a racist,because you have read something out of context.You know nothing about me,of course unlike your good self I have read much of your rubbish,and indeed been to your own blog where your state of mind is palpaple.

Who are you to pass judgement on literacy skills.You must be confusing literacy with wit,the latter of which you are empty.Although you do share some of the elements of wit the lowest form sarcasm.Anyway when was literacy pre-requisite for an arguement?You are obviously literate but you are still as dumb as a bag of hammers.Along side you I am a clone of Charles Dickens.

By the way I was right the first time,Howard did indeed get the morons to vote for him and of course it proves my point, you are one of them.

And please no more bursts I want to get on and talk to the people with a sense of humour.

Shonga “Selfish self opionated people really get my blood boiling, as if everyone was in your position, wake up and smell the roses, your bragging about your talents is annoying to the average people who rely on awards to make sure they have enough money to support a family”

Shonga, really you should get understand this

You are in no way responsible for the why’s, how’s or where for’s of my life.

Likewise, I am not responsible for the annoyances, petty jealousies and “averageness” of yours.

If you cannot deal with that, I suggest you just don’t bother to post.

Rex agree with many of your points. However, matters of legislation, labour laws included, is one of “balance”.

Circumstances and social conditions have changed the point of “balance” has, consequently, “changed”.

One of those circumstances, thanks to this government, is a, historically very low rate of unemployment and high job vacancy rates.

So, regarding “Well, under the proposed legislation, plenty of good honest Australian workers will find that it's no good being prepared to fight for their rights, because they'll have no rights to fight for.”

We all have the right to find another job and they are out there waiting.

As for “she doesn't understand the concept of fighting for one's rights”

Because some people lack some “skills” does not demand that the rest of us should be held back because of their deficiency
– no one can afford to live in ignorance – becoming part of the Australian community requires more than a language change, it requires a “cultural change” too (when in Rome……)

"And please no more bursts I want to get on and talk to the people with a sense of humour."

Oh, I see. Since you can't defend your comments you are going to claim it was all just good-natured banter. Excuse me for failing to see the funny side of accusing everyone here of being racists. I guess it was funny the first 1000 times it was done, now it's just pathetic.

Yobbo, it is just like all that good natured banter about Howard being like Hitler and us Aussies support our "Gulag" detention centres.

t.u.s

Col Rouge, can we sum up your last post thus " I am all right Jack" ?

[Comment deleted for flaming and poster suspended for one week. First breach but a fairly flagrant violation of forum rules.]

The problem with Australians as I see it is that most are politically biased and therefore immature when it comes to thinking politically. If you have voted one way all you life you don't really understand democracy. You must on occassion change your vote.

When Gough Whitlam first came into power he pushed through many reforms ... all far too hastily for the likings of the Liberal/Country Party and other Aussie voters. It was wrong and showed poor judgement on his part.

Now JH is doing a similar thing... pushing things through with undue haste. The fact that he has been in Govt for now his third term doesn't alter this fact.

Honesty has gone out the window. The Howard Govt uses plausible deniabilty as it's defence from kids overboard to Reserve Bank appointments.

The real danger to our democracy from both political sides is the lowering of standards, the ignoring of core & then non core promises and the stacking of committees and boards.

JH is on old war horse but he (like Keating) may be doing more harm to our democracy than he or his followers can contemplate. The Liberals are out of control and racing to the far right more each day.

Malcolm Fraser has is corect... The Liberals are no longer liberal.

hedgehog "Col Rouge, can we sum up your last post thus " I am all right Jack" ? "

Certainly not.

But I make the decisions which effect my life.
I do not kowtow to anyone nor play the "union" or "corporate" game.
I work on the basis that the idea of having a "secure job" went out the window with serfdom.

If I were "All right" I would not work 6 days a week and would not be investing most of what I earn into new venturers. I would be sat back moaning about how my union was not defending my divine rights to a challenge-free, gravy train existence in a government funded sheltered workshop.

You see, some of us want to take risks with and apply effort in our lives.

We resent those who would attempt to hold us back from receiving full and fair reward for those risks and that effort

It is called "individualism", it leads to individual fulfillment (emotional / spiritual as well as material)

and it beats "collectivism" every time (because that represents lots of lives with wasted potential).

Col, face it mate your just selfish and probably have no friends. That wouldnt concern you though because your a rugged individual.

The interesting point both in respect to the views raised by Mr Evans and responses received is not so much the sour grapes attachment but the underlying message as a result of the Howard Government majority in the Senate.

At the end of the day political democracy and the doctrine of responsible government as demonstrated examples of checks and balances are basically, as per current arrangements, null and void.

This is not want I voted for in the last Federal elections - incidentally the above arguments should be separate from ideology, however, under the Howard doctrine ideology is a major point.

Towing the party line and complying with Liberal ideology appears to be more important to the Coalition Government in a comparative regard to the representation of their constituents.

Pretty shallow Mr Howard. Thus, certain issues as explored by Mr Evans do have an element of truth regardless of one's political views.

Cheers,

Brendan

hedgehog "Col, face it mate your just selfish and probably have no friends. That wouldnt concern you though because your a rugged individual."

Quite wrong, yet again hedgehog.

Several years ago I returned tro living in Australia from overseas after a failed marriage.

I found I had more than 12 "friends" who loved me enough to put themselves out to ensure I received the emotional, material and financial support to successfully re-integrate into Australian work, social and professional life.

Such an experience was profoundly humbling.

Not that I would wish you to need to endure the pain of a broken marriage to experience it but just maybe, oneday your network will be so tested. Then Hedgehog, you will have some idea as to what I mean.

Until then, you sound like an abnormally negative example of the sort of excuse for humanity which can only see the worst in people. The sort of person who is sickly envious not only at what other people have but also at what other people are. The sort of person who continually plays the blame card to makeup for their lack of courage, enthusiasm, inventiveness, individualism and ethic.

As such - there is little in my life which you could ever empathise with, so your small minded slurs come as no surprise - they are to be expected from someone who already knows they are, patently, socially, intellectually and morally made of inferior substance.

I feel sad for you, your wasted life will remain a wasted life - empty, shallow, bereft of friends and envious (as your statement clearly confirms) of those who have them.

In the light of the VSU issue, and the FF candidate stealing power away from Barnaby Joyce, it becomes clear that our democratic system is open to:

"TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY"

I don't have any real problem with Steve Fieldings decision, because Barnaby Joyce was only holding out for a compulsory fee in regards to sporting activities which I totally support. The federal government is allocating 80million towards this lost funding, and I presume it means the students will not now be hit with a 'fee' but WILL have access to some of the important services they would otherwise have lost, if, that is the universities actually keep that funding in a SEPARATE ledger.

The potential for a 'bad' holder of balance of power... like Bob Brown or the relevance challenged...... Andrew Bartlett(had to think 30seconds to remember his name) just imagine the social havoc possibly wrought.

This illustrates the political dangers of large numbers of ethnic people moving into areas which are politically differently flavored.

It was said prior to a Vic State election around.. 1986 "Box Hill will become an Asian power centre within 5 yrs" but these claims were written off as " bigoted racist political propoganda".... Has anyone been to Box Hill lately ?

Just ONE indpendant of a particular culture or religious faith NOT compatible with Australian mainstream could also have a tyrranical effect.

LEFT..GREENS.. 'see RED' (THEIR TRUE COLORS)

I believe we also saw a classic example of 'Radicals driving the agenda' in the vicious hate filled racist attack on Steve Fieldings office. The 'Left' who yesterday were protesting 'War' today are defacing his office and DECLARING WAR. But then, Lenin ordered the machine gunning of striking workers too..nothing new.

THE ROOT of the ANGER is LOST POLITICAL TOYS

Yes, sorry lefty atheist student activists.. you will now have to WORK for those funds that you wish to use for political protest..and fares to remote places to protest at. Perish the thought.

David_BOAZ – I agree with your view.

The issue is about the left has demands for a socialist model on which to poison the thinking of formative minds – eg young university students. Such entryist strategies are manifest when I listened to Senator Nettles (Greenies) foaming and salivating over the airwaves on broadcast of her rabid speech demanding we kowtow to her “MINORITY” view of social order and collectivist mediocracy.

Oh what absurdity she spewed. If she were younger I am sure she would have been diagnosed suffering colic.

Barnaby Joyce is now a pariah of the first order, his political career over almost before it began.

The whole thing about “voluntary” unionism is this – if the “essential services” the left claim "compulsory unionism" provides were worth a brass razoo, students will still pay for them. However, diversion of compulsory subscription into leftist slush-funds will no longer be a matter of the usual subterfuge and corruption – they (the left) will have to “fund” their anti-social and asinine causes through their own efforts and maybe even get a job at MCDonalds to finance “the cause” - instead of relying on the "conscription" of monies from a captive population of students.

Number of times Labor "rammed" through senate legislation when last in power. Almost 300.

Number of times Coalition has since 1996. Almost 100.

Keeping tugging at it Chris. Government exists to govern. Do you honestly think the outcome of any of this legislation would have been different if more debate would have been allowed.

t.u.s

Hello I have just discovered this site and I am quite interested in the views being put forward and would like to add my own.
Senator Evans speaks about the tyranny of the majority in the Senate however I dont see it as any different to the Victorian Labor Government having big majorities in both houses, or the Queensland Government having a huge majority in a single chamber Parliament,
I take the view that the real danger is this iron-clad party discipline in both Labor and Coalition M.P.'S vote on party lines on almost every issue,whatever happened to the notion of representing the views of their constituents?

Fine observation Mr H. Despite those wopping majorities, i am unaware of any flagrant attacks on employers rights in iether Vic. or Qulnd. Given that the ALP are constantly accused of being toadies to the Union movement, that is a tad strange.Howard is abusing his majority, he has no mandate for any of his recent extreme agenda.