The employees of this country have absolutely nothing to thank the Democrats for, first Cheryl Kernot agreed with Peter Reith's legislation on behalf of the Party, then Meg Lees agrees to the G.S.T. both of which are still hurting low income Australian families.

That said, one Australian University today offered its workforce AWA"s or the sack, the coal face has seen the first of many such actions. The University claims that the pay and conditions are better than could be agreed upon in a Union involved agreement? This seems very peculiar to me, if the pay and conditions are available why should the AWA offer more than would otherwise be offered, or is there a catch? This is a very interesting situation, which has not had a great deal of media coverage?

Could this be part of the conservative push to eliminate Unions, worker Unions that is, not employer Unions, from the Australian political scene, and so leave the employee COMPLETELY at the mercy of the employer, who would then slowly but surely lower employees pay and conditions over time, without opposition? Something to think about good people, please think long and hard....

SHONGA.

This is getting annoying, as a fully fledged member of the “Grumpy Old Man” club I find myself agreeing with yet another OLO post. You are correct.

It is because of the Democrats that we have a GST; it is also because the Democrats are such a failed party that we have the IR laws.

Of course there is a push to eliminate unions; this is where the labor party derives the majority of its income. It makes good political sense to deprive your opponent of funds. They can’t even bear the term Student Union.

The great IR scandal will unveil itself over the next few years, Johnny hopes he will win one more election before it really kicks in. He knows he cannot resign, he is the glue holding his parties factions together. The ALP-DLP split will be a picnic compared to what Johnny is keeping a lid on.

Like it or not John Howard is our executive government, the power of the Prime Minister’s Dept has grown incredibly during his reign.

It doesn’t matter what the Democrats do, it is a question of when the coalition factions explode my guess is it will be sooner rather than later.

OK no more agreeing with anyone. Yabby, Alchemist and SHONGA are enough for one year, let alone one week.

If the Rann Government is easily returned in the S.A. election, Mr. Howard will say it was fought on state issues and has no bearing on the federal scene,likewise if the Liberal Opposition cause an upset and win you can expect the same answer from Mr. Beazley.
I think Mr. Murray is just trying to get some attention for the Democrats which suggests to me that they may be facing extinction in S.A.
The pollsters seem to be saying it will be an easy win for the Labor Government so it would appear we can expect the above mentioned answer from Mr. Howard.
The funny thing is the S.A.Liberals only need to win 4 seats to win and yet according to the election experts they are hopeless, they must like being in Opposition.

Although our 6 year terms for Senators is excellent as a conservative mechanism - not allowing for radical change, but keeping the people behovant of their choices in the past and the present - and allows for gradual change over all else, it does have one failing: it allows those who have no chance at re-election to have a platform to be heard disproportionately. If Australians learn that they're stuck with the Democrats and Greens for longer than they bargain for, perhaps then it may be a good thing.

A Bit of Democrat History for soon to be Mr Murray
1992 IR Legislation helped by the Democrats - No Murray - Generally considered good ammendments
1996 IR Legislation helped by the Democrats - Murray major force - Generally considered bad ammendments
1998 GST Legislation helped by the Democrats - Pushed by Murray, Meg Lees, and advisor John Cherry, the never elected Senator for Qld. Andrew Bartlett and Stott Despoja crossed the floor. Huge member revolt and a disaster for the Democrats.
2001 Members sack Lees as the party is in freefall. Members elect new leader, Stott Despoja. Stott Despoja saves the party from election oblivion in 2002.
2003 Gang of Four Democrats Senators, unable to forgive Stott Despoja for her attempt to try and return the party to member control and the loss of the hugely unpopular Meg Lees (Murray being the major instigator)destroy the Democrats by ending the popular leadership of Stott Despoja.
2004 Election Oblivion for the Democrats.
Well Done Senator Murray

There are some good comments here but many are clearly motivated by a reconstructionist history of the major role the Democrats played in Federal politics.

The sheer lack of objectivity or critical thinking is redolent of those who have failed to move on and realise the Democrats are the only party who have ANY hope of taking the centre political ground and knocking off the more deleterious aspects of the recent legislation.

The chronology provided by the last entry on IR is blatantly false as the Democrats supported Consensus Marks 1-ix. Much of this 'commentary' ignores the major contributions of all past and present Democrat senators. Many of these comments seem fixated in the past. This psychopathology of pining for a halcyon 'yesteryear' underpins the core values of the Howard Government.

Get your heads in to the present and now and critique rather than personalise. Murray's post was a postulate - nothing more. I'd certainly like to hear from people who can make a logical and well thought out contribution on Senate balance of power issues.

Cheryl