I can exclusively reveal that David Peetz, Professor of Industrial Relations at Grifftafe, and another academic involved with the recent and highly questionable study on Workchoices, is another socialist bitterly opposed to labour market reform. Clear and incontrovertible proof can be found in his address on Radio National.

Furthermore, Peetz has been described as "a leading opponent of free labour markets" by Gerard Jackson, who also strongly criticises the right-wing H.R. Nicholls Society in the very same article. In fact, Peetz's industrial relations views have been promoted and endorsed in the Labor 'e' Herald. And union lefty Greg Combet has even offered the following glowing reference: "David Peetz's research demonstrates clearly that individual contracts are the antithesis of modern, productive employment relationships".

In another article, Peetz wrote that "WorkChoices is not about increasing productivity or prosperity; rather, it is about increasing the power of those who already have the most power and resources, and in doing so taking power away from those who have the least, and from those who would challenge the power of the mighty."

As evidence that the study is little more than a hatchet job on the Government, consider the following facts:
1) The study was partly funded by Unions NSW.
2) Both of the academics responsible for the research are leftards who oppose economic rationalism and have very strong views on the virtues of collective bargaining and the awards system.
3) There are very apparent problems with the study's methodology.
4) The study is very critical of Workchoices.
5) The findings have been released just a couple of months before the federal election.

John Buchanan and his lefty Grifftafe comrade David Peetz have both been exposed. I would advise both of them to include a disclaimer in an research that they conduct. That way all of us will be able to be aware that the research has not been conducted by academics involved in a selfless pursuit of truth, but by ideologues who support left wing causes.

For the full story: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2007/10/other-workchoices-researcher-lefty.htm

The only interesting claim you make above is

"3) There are very apparent problems with the study's methodology."

That the study was backed by union funding and conducted by left-leaning academics is good reason to suspect that aspects of the study's methodology may be questionable (seeing as it's rather unlikely such a scenario would ever lead to a report concluding that WorkChoices was fantastic), but isn't proof of anything in itself. Indeed, what finally convinced me that the government itself knows that the consequences of WorkChoices have been less than ideal is that the only criticisms they seem able to make of the study is to call it "contaminated" and biased. Were they instead to have made specific and valid criticisms of the study's methodology and conclusions, the case for WorkChoices might still have a leg to stand on.

That's right - keep shooting the messenger.

Avoid discussing the points raised and it will all just go way.

People have already made up their minds about Workchoices and the more it's mentioned, the more they are reminded and the more entrenched their views become.

It's a bit like Basil Fawlty's "Don't mention the War" but they keep running their political ads about it, expecting that everybody will change their minds.

With you Wobbles, besides with the Fed gov deliberately withholding information what hope in accurate summation of Workchoices can there be.

Of course if Workchoices really were working - would it be necessary to cut access? See The Age below:

Academics' access to AWAs cut
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Michael Bachelard
October 9, 2007

WHILE the Federal Government has attacked academics whose study of WorkChoices it disagrees with, it has also stopped researchers from getting crucial information to study the effects of the industrial relations system.

Workplace Authority chief Barbara Bennett has written to two researchers in recent months denying access to samples of people's individual contracts — Australian Workplace Agreements — citing privacy.

Before WorkChoices, her predecessors allowed access to AWAs, protecting privacy by blacking out names and addresses. But Ms Bennett has said she "would need to seek the agreement of both parties to an AWA" before releasing any.

Ms Bennett's predecessor, Peter McIlwain, gave evidence to a Senate committee last year that 40 per cent of WorkChoices' AWAs stripped entitlements to public holidays; 52 per cent reduced shift loadings and 63 per cent cut penalty rates.

No more figures have been released, but 11 months later, the Government introduced the fairness test to combat bad publicity.

Academics, even those previously sympathetic to the Government's IR policies, say the non-disclosure policy has left the public, and the politicians who formulate policy, flying blind.

"It's disappointing when people try to stop research because they are insecure about what the outcome might bring," said Macquarie University academic Dr Paul Gollan."

Continued....

Continued

"Associate Professor Gollan co-wrote a study in 2001 with another of Ms Bennett's predecessors, former Peter Reith staffer Jonathan Hamberger, which argued against the proposition that AWAs were harming workers.

Professor Gollan said the Federal Government should invest much more in research. "Probably 95 per cent of people WorkChoices doesn't negatively affect … But today, you can't even find out who they are because you just don't know how people are disadvantaged."

Gary Rothville, a lawyer who has argued the employers' side for 30 years, most recently for Collins Street firm Arnold Bloch Leibler, said access to information was a "fundamental principle" in industrial relations.

"Lawyers have a professional duty to reveal all relevant facts to the court. It would be interesting if politicians would adhere to the same stricture," he said.

Monash University academic Professor Richard Mitchell said he believed the Government was "worried about what research could uncover, but they are trying to obscure that by talking about privacy issues".

And Melbourne University's Colin Fenwick said it was "striking that the Government puts so much emphasis on this policy instrument, but does not seem to have carried out research that would support its central tenets".

But Ms Bennett defended her decision, saying all AWAs were now lodged electronically, making it more difficult to mask who the parties were.

Asked if the authority should simply print out the agreements and use a black marker to obscure names and addresses, she said, "It isn't a conspiracy." Saying that "we're listing information as much as possible", she admitted that her "ability to get information will improve".

Yeah right Ms Bennett, the gullible believe you.

I must admit, I'm pretty unimpressed by these 'revelations' that you AJFA, and the likes of Albrechtsen et al, are putting forward.

As other posters have pointed out, it is indeed a case of shooting the messenger.

Quite frankly, I don't care if Marx himself did the report. I want to see more commentary on the substance.

I noted in Howard's initial response (before they adopted the 'attack the man, not the topic' angle) they tried to use ABS figures.

Then of course, the head of the ABS came out and refuted their figures could be used in any way as an endorsement of workchoices.

The other point to note in reading Howard and Hockey's responses, was that they didn't actually address the substance of the matter.

They claimed that the ABS figures proved that growth was occurring, wages were rising, and all is fine and dandy.

But that completely ignores the fact that it's an issue of comparison - you can't just say wages have risen and that's the end of it, because much of that can be chalked up to general economic conditions.

I have yet to see a response from the government that in any way addresses the key platform of the report, which is that workchoices is worse when compared (and note, it's the comparison that's the key here) to collective agreements.

Which in itself is quite pathetic - they could at least come out pointing out that people on AWAs are typically in the more high paid sectors and try to spin in more favourably, then at least we'd have the beginnings of a debate... one that I suspect they would lose, however.

Which is why they're attacking the man instead. It's far too much of an electoral liability to let slide.

You see the same tactics in OLO threads, from those who aren't any good at honest debate. Though it's rather disappointing our government follows the same line.