An interesting article.

A collegue once said "the only way to ensure you don't make a bad decision is not to make a decision at all"

With all the committees etc it looks as though most decisions will be postponed until after the next election.

In the interim the new union friendly "fair work" legislation looks set to enforce union bargaining on employees whether they want it or not, and restore market rigidity. In the new world market this will do for Australian industry what the Japanese did for Darwin.

The road to unemployment is paved with good intentions.

The only positive thing I can say about Bertrand's article is that it comprehensively summarises the views of the neo-con commentariat that seems to be endocrinally averse to participatory democracy and due process. Anyone who has worked in the higher levels of government (as I did for 20 years) would know that legislative change takes time and implementation of that legislation takes even longer. Take for example the new IR legislation introduced to parliament this week - more than 500 pages! Does Bertrand think that opposition parties have a brigade of legislative draftspeople who have transformed all policies into defendable legislation on day one? This is real stuff that has to pass very rigorous scrutiny. The Rudd government introduced some stop-gap IR measures earlier in the year to ensure that the old regime did not prevail any longer than possible. And industry development and innovation: What about the Bracks auto plan? It was extensive and careful and has reported boldly, with recommendations accepted and announcements made. Did Bertrand expect Rudd to make a multi-billion-dollar announcement on the auto industry on Nov 25 2007, with cheques ready to be posted on Nov 26? And Innovation- there were more than 600 submissions from every significant stakeholder, plus many others. That's participation for you. The pre-election policy was that more must be done. Quite what and how takes time. And so on. Take into account that the election was in late November and Australia essentially shuts down until February. Then they had to frame a budget, knowing that the financial tsunami was coming. Then the past 4-5 months they have been dealing with the tsunami. The fact that the Rudd government has sought to ensure that it, and the populace, are now well informed is an achievement in itself. What is needed from OLO contributors is more careful analysis and understanding of real-world processes- that is, INFORMED opinion- just like the Rudd- and soon, Obama- governments.

Jedimaster,

Given that IR is not exactly a new area, and that Labor supposedly had a clear policy, the time to draft the legislation had more to do with negotiation with the unions than anything else.

Considering what was presented to industry for comment and consultation even a month ago compared to what turned up in parliament it would appear that the unions had a fair hand in re tooling it.

Kevin 747 has kept us up to date by attending personally just about every summit and has been on more trips so far than Howard in his first 2 terms in office. No wonder there has been no one at home to do the real work.

However, given that it takes government up to a year to approve house plans, it would be unfair to compare them to the real world.

While claiming a mandate to remove work choices, Labor has far exceeded it and turned the clock back to before China and India were industrial competitors.

Pattern bargaining (albeit under another name) and enforced representation by a union can only hamper productivity and shift manufacturing overseas. While the unions did a sterling job in hollowing out the economy in the 70s and 80s, it looks as though they are back for what remains.

Labor's answer would appear to subsidise (to the extent of nearly $1000 for every working person) the inefficiencies and impose additional protectionist levies on unionised industries such as the auto industry, which probably should go to the wall.

With the financial Tsunami they have the pretext to throw money at all problems with no accountability and no need to keep any election financial promises.

Given that it will probably take 3 years for the chickens to come home to roost, I guess we will be stuck in the 80s for another 5 years at least.

Very worthwhile changes have been implemented by the Minister for Immigration. These include the abolition of temporary protection visas; dismantling most of the Pacific (so-called) Solution and changes to the Citizenship test.

And as a result we are going to be flooded with low grade migrants who we can well do without.

David

Jedimaster,

I'm glad you have revealed that you used to be a bureaucrat yourself, because that seems to explain why you are sympathetic to our chief bureaucrat and his government.

Results and clearly superior to processes. A poor policy is not made much better just because it involved wise consultation, or followed an inquiry. Holding otherwise seems to be a notion which could only be held by Sir Humphrey.

Indeed, Fuelwatch and Grocery watch are two primary examples of how process is no substitute for outcomes. No person with a basic understanding of how markets work could assert that these policies are likely to reduce prices. In fact, four different government departments opposed Fuelwatch.

Another classic example that was mentioned yourself was the protectionist policies recommended by Steve Bracks and embraced by Rudd. Do you seriously believe that Labor mate Bracks was an apolitical appointment? Rudd chose the inquiry committee so that he could also choose the recommendations. What also confirms this,a s well as the uselessness of the protectionist policies is the stroing condemnation by Trasury and the productivity commissionm.

It's quite clear that green has become the new pretext for protectionism. Paint an old policy green and try to sell it as new. Unfortunately, even types who say they have worked in the senior echelons of the public service such as yourself appear to fall for it hook line and sinker.