Today JWH would with no doubt, be prime minister still.
Without work choices.
That is the truth.

Belly,

I agree that workchoices was the cause of JH's loss. And there is no doubt that he went too far. However, the fair work act has now swung the pendulum back way too far ripping away reforms of even the previous labor government.

This thread is about Labor bastardizing the process even further by appointing to the "independent tribunal" essentially union henchmen. This means that there is no chance of businesses receiving any where near a fair hearing. And any union is emboldened to use dirty tricks as the worst that will happen is that they will be judged by their mates.

The only way to keep jobs when the dollar increases is to increase productivity, the alternative is to see wide spread rationalizations as is beginning to happen now.

It was disappointing to see during the Estimates process that FWA is not releasing the delegate's report on the Thomson affair. There may be valid reasons relating to privacy of individuals (other than Thomson) but if that is indeed the case, names, places and other telling information can easily be redacted. Afterall governments are good at redaction even with in-principle commitments to more open and honest government.

How many have stood before an industrial judge and been flogged by an ex union man?
Many if not most who I stood before as arbitrators had been union men.
Howard was a politician.
Few want to hear that, but some basics he knew are yet to be learned by Labor.
This thread is not one of them.
His rule of his party was to stop such as Gillards rise and fall, fall she will if not Monday even harder soon.

Workchoices, as I recall - produced no increase in productivity either, unless you define productivity as simply producing more by paying employees less.

Two words come to mind.

A JOKE!