Blow Up the Pokies,

Poker Machines are responsible for many people exceeding their earnings in spendings, thus once you have an addiction, regardless of your wages dropping you will still play pokies, with the majority of poker machine revenue deriving from less that 20% of the total pokie playing population. In fact, during periods of recession etc Alcohol and Gambling revenues can actually increase, in line with crime etc and a more desperate population.

If you are short on money, this is sometimes the only option people know to explore.

I must admit, I hate them, I cannot understand the logic of any intelligent person playing them. you have no control over the outcome, your thriftiness or speculative skills have no bearing (unless in selecting a machine that pays out) so why on earth do people feed money into something with you having no control over winning or losing?

At least with horses, 1 of the field will win, 3 of the field wil place and it relies heavily on the form of the horses and conditions as a general rule. At least an with an educated gamble you are responsible for you winning or losing as you made the selection, and your ability to win does not rely on several people before you having to lose.

Pokies are the most expensive video game ever invented. The joke is on us as a gullible population.

I am somewhat unsatisfied with the extent of the posts to date. Would someone please explain to me how exactly the Corporations power will support a law, that essentially uses it connection with some of the parties concerned, to regulate non-incorporated business', self-employed contractors and non-incorporated small business and partnerships?

This was an approack invalidated by the courts (Dingjan) in 1996(?), and the new laws purportedly removing unfair dismissal protection and redundancy pay obligations from small to medium employers, will be invalid for the same reason (incidentally, as the new laws do not appear to be capable of operating the same way if this is severed, tehy will be invalid to that extent). Additionally, while the wage fixing authority may be supported under the external affairs power (ILO Treaty), the limiting of union access and right of entry is directly contrary to the same, in which case it is unlikely to be upheld as being adapted to implementing Australia's international obligations.

This will remove much of the sting from the new system, however it will not be fatal to the stated aim of a national workplace relations system. However, particularly as the current court is enamoured of strict legalism (see Dixon CJ), it is perhaps time to examine a principle ennunciated by Sir Owen, being the maxim ‘quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud’ (See A-G (Cth) v Schmidt (1961); also see Bourke v State Bank NSW (1991); Vic Workcover v Andrew [2005] FCA 94). This basically means that one cannot do indirectly, what one cannot do directly, and is possibly fatal to the proposed scheme.

Hello Aaron,
I’ll believe your statement at face value, given that my knowledge of the details in your post is near zero. I like your direction, though- the mechanics of the proposed IR changes should be discussed more.
I also have interest in as to why the corporations power overrides existing, non-business bodies (ie Unions) & their existing legal powers. I fear that a lot of the apparent legal contradictions will not be seen until tested during disputes & will end up costing the worker etc a lot more than it does now or is presently feared under the new laws.
I can see the distinction between discriminatory & non-discriminatory terminations being quite blurred, most likely deterring some number of affected employees from taking action. It has been common practice by employers to ‘shift’ the ‘reason’ for dismissal to the legally defendable & it will become more so.
The lessening of Union powers will result in less disputes reaching court, but only because less will be defendable on the part of the complainant. The employee is the loser.
If you have the legal insight required to explain the more controversial points (the devil is always in the detail) of the IR changes please do so, Aaron..
Hedgehog, you obviously have zero business experience. You did not understand Boaz’s last post.

OK,

For starters the the proposed changes to unfair dismissal protection and removing the redundancy pay obligation from small - medium business are extremely unlikely to survive challenge. This is because the affect of these laws is to effect the relationship between parties, even if neither is incorporated, this type of law has previously been held invalid (Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (1996)). From the wording of the relevant legislation the provisions which would be invalid do not appear to be severable from the remainder of the Act/Bill (eg not all employers of less than 100 staff are Constitutional Corporations), therefore it will probably all be invalid.

Secondly, Australia is party to an International Labour Organisation treaty which provides for a national wage setting authority, so this would appear to be supported by the external affairs power. However, Australia is also party to other ILO treaties which among other things, guarantee freedom of association and the right to strike, and of the unions right of entry. Therefore the laws abrogating or curtailing these rights would presumably not be reasonably adapted to giving effect to our international obligations (see eg Polyukhovich; & Tasmanian Dams), however there is some authority that the Commonwealth can unmake any law that it can make (Khartinyeri; CFMEU), therefore it is unclear whether this will be valid, possibly in order to retreat from Australias international obligations the courts would require evidence that the Government was prepared to repudiate these treaties.

Lastly, with regard to strict legalism, and its possibilities please read my previous posts [ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3687#19583 ] & [ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=65#19825 ]

Thanx Swilkie :)
I only now just read hedgehogs post.. wow.. quite an attack.
So, I should go out and get a job ? sure.. lets make this January05 and I'll apply to SILCRAFT :)

Hedgey.. Swilkie is right, u did not understand my post.
What I didn't tell you is that my 7x9 living area is part of a 27x 9 factory, on over a million dollars worth of land which I invested in when business was booming.

I'm by no means 'failed', our business is growing. I don't employ anyone except me and the occasional part timer, because business is not 'that' big yet. But even then, if my production increased 10 fold, I would more likely resort to automation than extra labor, leaving just 'final testing' to me.

I did work for an 'employer' for 9.5 years and hated every minute of it, but when you have a family and a mortgage, we do what we have to for their sake.

I left employed work to do my own thing. I put all my super and long service into it. I prefer to fufill my dreams rather than someone elses. I've had the $20,000/month thing and also the $400/month, we have to be flexible in business.

Ask urself this, 'why did Silcraft just re-trench 400 workers' ?

Simple, the Vehicle manufacturer they supply found a cheaper source!

Now, if this can apply to 'business', why can it not apply to 'labor' ?

Why should employees have any more guarantees in this life than those they work for ? Do you think the directors of Silcraft will continue making the same money after those 400 troops are discharged ? duh.

Mate..its not about 'blaming' pe se its about life and the harsh realities thereof.
You seem to think 'someone' out there owes you a particular lifestyle level. Well, newsflash :) 'they don't'

I think many of us are experiencing a crisis of faith in 'how life is meant to be'.
When our pioneers were faced with this, they got in and did what they had to for survival.

I am mindful of a reported conversation between Henry Ford and his workers Union representative when Ford was gloating over his newly automated assembly line.
"There are my new workers....Try and sell them Union Tickets "
to which the Union Rep replied " OK, now you sell them motor cars"
The rush to export Australia's manufacturing industry overseas to the lure of cheap sweatshop labour has it's obvious limitations for the long term.

Who hasn't received a phone call from a call centre in India offering services in Australia while Aussie workers are sacked ?

Who buys re-constituted imported orange juice marketed by foreign owned Parmalat because it's cheaper than the Aussie grown product and resulted in Aussie growers dumping their fruit ?

We will do well to understand that the relationship between providers and consumers is one of interdependence.

Just imagine the chaos that will occur when we can no longer afford to run a motor vehicle because of the cost of fuel and the whole country becomes an enormous parking lot of unsaleable motorcars