WoA,

"Except for most employees, to trade annual leave for pay is almost certainly a bad idea..."

This statement shows exactly what's wrong with the platform pitched by Labor - blanket rules or statements like this do not take into account individual circumstances or preferences. In the last 10 or so years, I've probably taken 4-5 weeks of annual leave in total and I'm perfectly happy with my situation (except that I can't trade away my leave as I would like to). And I'm not Robinson Crusoe on that.

By denying all people (read: not just those earning over 100K) the ability to negotiate what's right for them, you're denying them the ability to make their working lives into what they want. In short - you're denying them liberty. And given that most of us spend most of our waking time at work, it's pretty important that our working life is as close to how we want it as it can be.

And BN, if you could find a way to grant that liberty to the relatively few people that genuinely would benefit from less leave and more pay, but avoid the risk of it becoming common practice, or worse, a method by which unscrupulous employers could bribe more work out of their employees than would otherwise be reasonable, then I would be all for it.

"Liberty" is not some magical goal that automatically gainsays all others. Even if it were, it will ever be the case that granting more liberty in one area subtracts from liberties in other areas. You want the liberty to earn more money and work less hours - I want the liberty not to have to worry that any potential employer will attempt to persuade or cajole me into that arrangement, which infringes on my liberty to spend precious time with my family and give my brain a much needed rest.

Ultimately, here I agree with the classical liberals, who generally took a utilitarian approach - when choosing which liberties are more valuable, we need to look at those that bring "the greatest happiness to the greatest number". If that means a few individuals lose out, then so be it. Far better than society as a whole losing out.
And fortunately, with democracy, the "greatest number" tend to get their way. If it truly were the case that the "greatest number" valued more money over more leave, no doubt the laws would be different.

WoA,

"if you could find a way to grant that liberty to the relatively few people that genuinely would benefit from less leave and more pay, but avoid the risk of it becoming common practice..."

Tell me, why should we stop it becoming common if that's what people want? Or, to put it another way, why restrict the market? I don't have statistics on how many people would go for it, but if the group I travel in is indicative, then about half of the population would go for it. Given the demand, shouldn't there be the option to provide supply to that demand?

"a method by which unscrupulous employers could bribe more work out of their employees than would otherwise be reasonable, then I would be all for it"

And here we are full-circle. In the current market, if you're a valuable employee then one of two things will happen:

1) You'll be able to negotiate to get what you want, so this isn't an issue
2) Unless you're in a very specific field, there'll be a demand out there for your services, so you can negotiate with someone else and get another job

The rub here is that you've got to be a valuable employee. If you're not then you might be apprehensive, you've got no one else to blame but yourself.

"...I want the liberty not to have to worry that any potential employer will attempt to persuade or cajole me into that arrangement..."

You forget that workchoices always had conditions in it that said that people couldn't be forced into AWAs (whether that was enforced or not is a different story). Labors position, however, is that you get an EBA or CA by default - there's no liberty in that if you earn under 100K. Labors position certainly is the lesser in terms of liberty.

BN, there have been many studies done that show the negative effectives of an unhealthy work-life balance, from broken families to the serious health effects of high stress levels etc. etc. Believing that you are somehow immune to such outcomes doesn't make it true.
Further, if you really do want to work that many hours, go and start your own business.

Regarding negotiation for better conditions, even if I accepted that the vast majority of employees do have that amount of negotiation power in the current market, and that current market conditions are almost certain to remain in place for the foreseeable future, then I dispute the fact that society or the economy as a whole will be better off in an environment where constantly moving from job to job is the only way to get reasonable conditions. If the law allows it, employers will tend to put pressure on employees to change workplace conditions towards something that employers/superiors see as beneficial to themselves individually in the short term, with little thought as to the larger-scale long-term effects. Stability and security are important to people for a whole host of reasons, not least being the effect it has on how people spend and/or invest the money they earn. Again, plenty of studies have been done on this very issue. If you are going to argue for granting more liberty to employers and employees to negotiate workplace conditions, show me some sort of proof that it actually has a net long-term benefit: it maybe unfortunate that certain individuals lose out with the current arrangement, but that on its own isn't sufficient justification for change. After all, most of the current legislation was put into place because previously the majority of employees were unhappy with the workplace conditions imposed upon them by employers, and democratically insisted upon it.

WoA,

I should be clear - while I work in IT, Human Resource Systems is what I actually do, so Human Resources is something that I'm quite familiar in, and the reality is not quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

Different people work in different ways and their requirement for things like annual leave (and a whole host of other "entitlements" (and I use that word loosly)) will vary based on the way they work, what they do, their age and stage in life and a whole range of other factors.

But none of that precludes people from having a time where in their individual working lives (be it a short period or a longer one) where it's adventageous to trade away certain conditions in exchange for something else, be it money or something different. And earning over 100K should not be the determining factor for this ability as Labor suggests. Again, Labors position is denying people the liberty to engage in negotiations if they want to.

"...then I dispute the fact that society or the economy as a whole will be better off in an environment where constantly moving from job to job is the only way to get reasonable conditions"

So, you're saying that people shouldn't be out on the hunt trying to find better packages/jobs/conditions for themselves? Do you stil believe in cradle-to-the-grave jobs? Perhaps this mentality of yours applies in other parts of life too? Are you really saying that people should just stay where they are and passively accept whatever the award or EBA or CA gives them?

Perhaps then you and I have very different opinions on advancement in life.

Cattle has a liberty to snore in shores.

That is an Anglo-feudal liberty for “Auzzy” staff.