Why does Pru beat about the bush. Howard asked the employers what they wanted, asked them what legal decisions they didnt like and gave it to them. Just in case anything was missed or mistakes were made, the door is left open to quickly fix it by regulation or Ministerial intervention. The punters will suffer very badly, and Pru, your mate Howard couldnt give a toss.

Hedgehog,

Of Course Ms Goward hedged around the actual issue, she is in fact employed by the Federal Government, which has now taken a leaf out of the Qld Nationals book, threatening its employees' with disciplinary action if they take part in strikes or protests vis a vis the 'Work Choices' package. This being the case, even executive level public servants must be concerned for their future employment prospects if they are too strident in their denunciation of the package.

What is most disturbing is that Ms Gowards department is one of the only checks and balances upon the new system, and her essay demonstrates that it IS effectively cowed. The other major check upon this system is the office of the employment advocate, which it turns out, does not even check agreements to determine whether they meet the vaunted statutory minima, and moreover does not have standing to intervene in such a situation. Such standing is restricted to those 'parties to the agreement', meaning that an employee may not even seek legal advice prior to accepting the AWA (NB Unions and other odies may also not intervene due to lack of standing).

This being the case, how exactly may an employee seek to impugn an AWA on the basis that it undercuts the statutory minima? Short answer, they cannot, unless they can afford to take the issue to a Federal Court, in which instance it would cost a LOT more than the $4,000 currently allocated to employees to fight unfair dismissal.

THIS IS VERY WRONG

Support Business' that supports employees and their families [see my blog]

Pru, you drop yourself down a well in your first sentence:
"I represent the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)."
That is an arrogance. You are spokesperson because the rest of the members represent the Human Rights and Equal Oportunity Commission. Otherwise there are no Equal Opportunity.
You next sentence has the word "our". If you represent the HREOC then you must use "the word "I". You speak for them, all those people who don't have equal opportunity and you are their representative.
For equal opportunity the opening sentence;
"I am the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's representative in putting forward their case for human rights." In thsi world, there are no human rights Pru. Why? Because people won't listen to arrogant statements that show there are no human rights for others than the leader.

Well, I think Ms Goward is a handsome woman who wrote a solid piece: she simply outlined what most serious analysts of the IR changes have been saying for a long time.

Attacking the woman or the body she works for is a bit of a waste of time: what she has said is fair comment and she paints a reasonable picture of the fate awaiting many employees.

I am not interested ,in the howard government and its IR legislation,all workers know,they are not idiots,that this is a John Howard con job,and his pipe dreams,but we all know that his mates in THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,is the master mind behind this workplace reforms,they demanded of him to put into practise,what he always wanted to do,and that was to destroy the unions,and then to return australian workers back to the days,of master and servant working conditions,he now has done that by directly,taking away their hard fought for working conditions,hoping that by doing it this way,unions will just fade away,but John Howard and the BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,who are still running their CRAP TV adverts in line with the John Howard version of why we need reform in the workplace,will be able to sit back on their fat behinds,just doing nothing,but thinking of more profit,for them and their shareholders,the rich 5% parasites,and can now be assured of more profit,at the expense of the workers,it will not last,time and will is on the side of the unions,and that is not far away,John Howard will soon be history,the signs are there,that this coalition government,has had its use by date.

Sneaky,

'HREOC does not wish to disagree with the factual outcomes regarding existing Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) released by the government...'

This tends to suggest that Ms Goward accepts as proven fact the Government's version of the outcomes of AWA's. This means that she 'refutes' (Yes, I know I did use it AGAIN) out of hand the claims, and the evidence supporting them, presented to the Senate inquiry by the unions, the ACTU and various individuals, which demonstrate the issues I outlined above. We are also expected to accept the Government's position that Mr Howards record on this subject is untainted, yet real wages and outcomes for Victorian Workers did in fact decline, despite Mr Howard promising that Victorian Workers would not be worse off.

Ms Gowards suggestions therefore, and her failure to examine the evidence regarding the unfairness and discriminatory effect of AWA's in the past, are flawed. AWA's will not be any more discriminatory, or cause greater infringement of employees rights in the future than they have in the past.

PS Sneaky as an aside, I reserve the right to bamboozle those attempting to hijack a serious argument, when they have nothing more to offer than a demonstration of their verbal/literal/typological incontinence and their concomittant logical/rational incompetence.

PPS Do you really think that 'preclude' is worse than 'contumelious'? ;-D