Stu.

It was on lateline, ABC TV, 01/12/2006 this is the first mention that Labor would tear up AWAs, made by Joe Hockey although Kevin Andrews did say something along the lines of "if labor are going to tear up AWAs what are they going to replace them with?"

Before and after this Labor has said it will tear up the unfair work choices legislation and remove new AWAs. Labor has never said they would tear up existing AWAs.

As I have said before, I cannot answer questions that are based on a false premise. You assert some kind of dishonesty in the fact that Labor has said it will take 2-3 years to get rid of existing AWAs but they have never stated otherwise.

This is a bit like "mass sackings" another favourite of the coalition but never actually said by any member of the opposition.

I cannot answer your questions because they cannot be answered.

"As Labor has said from the start we ill (sic) tear up AWA's": no they did not, Joe Hockey was the person who said it.

So the rest of your assertions are meaningless.

If you wish to keep spreading Joe Hockey's mis-information for him fair enough, but if you read your own IR policy it looks like your position is closer to the Labor party that to the existing laws.

Could it be you who has indulged in an exercise to generate membership?

Just so you understand.

LABOR HAS NEVER SAID IT WILL TEAR UP EXISTING AWAS

Tapp My voice is not raised I am not angry just amused, extremely so!
Labor said it would rip up workchoices not AWAs.
It will stop new AWAs, and use common law contracts but those AWAs still in force will only be canceled if one party wants to cancel them before the expiry date.
I am in fact going to keep a record of your posts your all over the shop record here may well be of interest one day, not in elections however.
Now my view not my union not my party my view only.
A national IR system is likely after an ALP win, basic minimum things protected in any contract or agreement like annual leave and overtime.
States may still have IR laws that are not in conflict with the national system.
Union membership will remain by choice.
Some review of training and importation of part time foreign workers may take place.
A stab in the dark? maybe ,what is your policy on imported workers?
AWAs? lowing wages for low income earners?
is there room in your plan for agreements based on productivity increases?
is productivity increases important in your plan?
do you think workers should have reduced income to fuel growth?
are some Australians less worthy of the good life than others?
Is the human race heading for trouble if wealth is our only measure of worth?

So lets have a look will rip up IR laws does this not include AWA’S
By Kim Beazley, Federal Labor Leader

The IR laws are a nightmare designed to control workplaces, desert the vulnerable, wreck family life and abandon decency and respect – and Kim Beazley's first act at PM will be to rip them up.
Date: 12 January 2006
• The first thing I’ll do as Prime Minister of this country will be to rip up these laws – all 1252 pages of them.
• And the second thing I’ll do will be to rewrite the laws to restore the rights of every Australian.

Belly I do actually agree with most of the ACTU’s policy but not all.
That will now sort that out.

LAURIE OAKES: Well let's talk about Labor's IR policy. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry wrote to you in August asking about your policy on Australian Workplace Agreements. Have you replied, and if so what did you tell them, what will you tell them?

KIM BEAZLEY: Well I'll tell them this, what I tell you and I tell any other Australian. Our view on workplace agreements - that's not the course we favour.

We favour collective bargaining and awards. We think that those give the right incentives for productivity changes in the workplace, those collective agreements that have been entered into since we put in place that level of flexibility in our workplace relations, and awards which give essential protections to people on things like penalty rates. That's what we favour.

We don't favour individual contracts, and we believe that if you properly protect collective agreements and awards against an ability of the AWA system to undermine them, AWAs will disappear and that'll be a good thing.

LAURIE OAKES: So you no longer subscribe to the policy Labor took to the last election, which was effectively to abolish AWAs

Stu

Unlike Belly I am getting angry, why did you omit Kim Beazleys reply "There'll be a million of those things in place when we come into office and you can't wander around cancelling contracts."

July 2006. Interview with Laurie Oakes from which Stu selectively quotes.

Have you already learnt how to mis-quote and bend the truth? Or are you well and truly out of your depth?

Now that you have pointed out another instance of the Labor party never ever saying they will rip up AWAs in fact your post gives even more credibilty to my arguement that Labor has never said they will tear up AWAs.

Stu, instead of asking for answers to your illogical assertions how about -

Sorry I was wrong, I got my facts wrong, I apologise.

I didnt mean to condocend you it comes down to words.

Now that it said the second thing was to restore rights to the workers.
Now how was he to do that, for those on contracts.

It also seems that the unions are having enough trouble with the labor party about ir reform, this can be seen on the actu website.

So the question still exists why do they require a transistion period.

Why is it that many seem to see the tearing up of IR laws inclusive with AWA's.

well i suppose labor would not have said anything different, why tell the people the truth.

www.tapp.org.au

In my view WorkChoices will be a thing of the past if just the right people are bothering to pursue JUSTICE!
Not until last week did I have time to read the 14 November 2006 judgment of the High Court of Australia, as I was busy finishing other books and have them published and now having started on my next book, due to be published next month about WorkChoices legislation I had to read the judgment.

Well, my book in Chapter 22 sets out why the judges went so of the rails and why there is no doubt by me that the decision will be overturned.

See also my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

If I had been a Member of parliament I could have on my own prevented, using constitutional grounds, the amendment Bill (WorkChoices) to have even been put to a vote, as while it takes a majority to pass a Bill it takes only one person to prevent a Bill from being permitted to be voted upon using the correct procedure.

It is terrible that with so much suffering to many innocent people, even loosing their homes because they cannot service their mortgage, lawyers appearing before the High Court of Australia never bothered to appropriately pursue the case.
Even so I was not at Court and neither read their submissions, the High Court of Australia judgment makes it all too clear how narrowed the lawyers presented the case.

So, instead of winging about the problems with WorkChoice I spend the past week working on exposing what is wrong with the legislation as well as the Courts judgment. Now it is up others to use it and then have the judgment overturned.
Those who desire to have a copy of this Chapter 22 of my book can get it by email, at no cost, as such it is not some sales gimmick.

See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.co