Put more simply,Kevin Rudd's view of IR reform as being "the bridge too far", does not does not consider the two choices ie "fork in the road" of either we go broke slowly and let the balance of payments worsen,or we become more competitive in order to keep industry here.

Many talk about all living standards on this planet rising,however that is not possible with too many people and diminishing resources/energy.Do we slow the rate of tarrif removal or even increase tarrifs in some areas in order keep industry and jobs.
It will be long time before China's low wage rate of $1 per hr rises significantly because of the enormous pool of cheap labor at hand.

We do not have a well balanced economy and when things do get tough again,we will have no means of supporting our extravgant Govt bureaucracies,social security or health systems.

Our Labor NSW Govt has done everything in it's power to destroy small business and still to this day lives in denial about it's stupid policies.The Iemma/Carr Govts have developed policies driven by fear of litigation and Union insanity.Why would business stay in NSW?

Our resources boom will prove to be our future poisoned chalice since real reform of Govt/PS,IR and business won't have kept pace with our competitors.

Workchoices is truly a croc. John Howard is quick to point out that it will create more jobs but avoids the fact that these jobs pay inferior wages under inferior conditions.

Example: My friend works at a pub. Her boss offered her work collective a small pay increase if they signed off on allowing new workers to be employed under AWA's. They took the pay rise. Funnily enough, they don't get weekend or public holiday shifts anymore because the new workers will do it for a third of the price. Worse, they put the drink prices up around the same time they started employing bartenders on $15/hr with no penalty rates or loading or laundry allowance. Do you think those kids are thanking John Howard for their good fortune? - Nope.

Everyone seems to know someone who has been affected by Workchoices (well at least every young person). I'm lucky, my pay conditions are set by a collective agreement - although it seems as though these GOOD jobs are getting harder and harder to find.

I think the author has overlooked the importance of awards in industrial relations. The purpose of awards may have once been a "one size fits all" approach to work place relations. But in dismissing the awards as such, the author neglects the importance of awards in manitaining minimum conditions in an industry.

Both EBA's and AWA's, pre-workchoices, needed to pass the "no disadvantage test". This was a condition to ensure that collective and individual agreements did not short-change employees. This test is no gone. Provided the five minimum conditions are met (3 of which do not apply to causal workers), the agreement is legal.

Awards are vital for mainting minimum standards.

As an anecdote, I've been on an AWA. I was paid $9.70/hour (pretax) to haul large boxes around. The work was hard, and left me with just enough cash to get through the week. I could barley keep up with rent, and couldn't afford my uni textbooks. My story is not particularly unique.

Workchoices is not short term legislation. It is long term legislation that is designed to shift the balance of power to employers favour gradually. The "sky hasn't fallen in" yet, as Joe Hockey has stated, but conditions and job stability for those in low paid, menial and unskilled labour will most likely get work, particularly if the economy encounters turbulence.

Arjay said: "Put more simply,Kevin Rudd's view of IR reform as being "the bridge too far", does not does not consider the two choices ie "fork in the road" of either we go broke slowly and let the balance of payments worsen,or we become more competitive in order to keep industry here."

True competitiveness is measured by productivity. As demonstrated both here and abroad, deregulating the labour market does not necessarily lead to greater productivity levels. In fact, in the first six months since WorkChoices, productivity growth went backwards by a further 1.6 percent.

Once again, I concur that the the balance of payments crisis needs urgent attention. Australia now seem permanently trapped in Banana Republic territory. However, Rudd isn't responsible for the Howard Government's failure to address our negative savings rate. He isn't responsible for the Howard's Government failure to encourage more investment in new export and import-replacement industries needed to service our growing debt. He isn't responsible for the Howard's Government failure to address infrastructure constraints. He isn't responsible for a tax system which encourages investment in the debt-intensive property market at the expense of more productive areas of the economy.

Mr. Howard came to the "fork in the road" and went into reverse.

John Howard must go! He has stripped Australian workers of their rights, fought for over the last 100 years. He has taken the term 'thrown onto the scrap heap' to whole new levels for the over 50's unemployed in this country. You can't go any lower than homeless! When are Australian voters going to vote this idiot out, before the damage is to great to repair?

The choices are these,we either select areas we think we can compete in and maintain tarrifs in accordance with the poor wages that third world countries pay their workers,then we can have a truely level playing field,or we lower our living standards to theirs in order to keep industry here.IR is about giving employers the upper hand so our industries will remain competitive.

There is no doubt that our country is bleeding to death with industry rapidly relocating where labour is cheapest.I think our Govt's solutions have been too simplistic.There are no level playing fields.Everything is weighted towards the countries where labour is cheapest.There is no such thing as a level playing field.There are no international rules by which businesss and their workers play by.Would we play The World Game under such conditions?If so,this would mean players could use rocket launchers on their opposition.

A chinese manufacturer near me has relocated in China and pays his workers $1 per hr.There are at least 100 workers waiting outside his factory waiting to take their jobs if they falter.How do we compete against that?

Why not maintain a degree of tarrifs and at the same time give tax incentives to businesses who remain here and use high tech solutions to combat India's/China's unlimited sources of cheap labour.There are not enough resources and energy in the world to raise third standards to that of ours,so why do we want to lower ours to theirs when we have enormous natural resources and a small population?

If the Coalition do not wake up and see some of the unfair aspects of IR and the future potential to create a serf culture once again,they will lose the next election and we will be left with a lame duck party comprised of Rudd's Duds.