Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

From today's SMH:
Staying put: strikes to be banned for five years on new projects

By David Humphries
November 2, 2005

New projects and industries will be quarantined from industrial action for five years, instead of the previously proposed one, under late changes expected in the Government's new workplace legislation.

Penalties for employers and workers who fail in their legal obligation to give notice of industrial disputes are likely to jump. The current maximum penalty is $33,000 for companies and unions and $6600 for individuals. ... more

Give us a rest. I'm going to lunch first - back by 5.

The performance of the Government in the House today is completely disgusting. To move to debate a contentious 688-page Bill that no one has read is an absolute disgrace.

After spending $55 million to soften the public up with advertising that didn't contain a scrap of detail about the actual laws, the least they can do is give our elected representatives the time to read it!

This whole campaign has been shabby and shameful politicing of the highest order. Workers appearing in the ads haven't been told what the footage would be used for. Workers on the 1800 information line for WorkChoices have been given 2-hours training -- some don't seem to know what an AWA is! If this is any example of the government's treatment of working people their ads are half right. It's "simpler" but it's not "fairer".

I was listening to the debate on the radio this morning as the bill was introduced and I think you have it a little wrong, Margo.

The standing order - as it was read by Stephen Smith - doesn't say anything about giving every member of the House a copy of the bill before the second reading. It says that the bill should be 'available'.

Even Smith admitted the bill was available in the House. I believe he mentioned half dozen copies were available for his side of the Chamber to peruse. Of course, the ALP wanted one copy each and raised their points of order and dissenting motions to that effect. However, I think it is wrong to say that the government needs to provide a copy to every MP: the standing order does not say this at all.

The bill is now available for download by the whole world. Maybe Smith will be able to sleep at night now...

From ABC On-line: "The Government has received specific intelligence from police information this week, which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat," Mr Howard told reporters.

So, they found out "this week" but they choose to reveal it on the very day that the IR laws are introduced to Parliament. Fascinating.

OK, first point:

The Fair Pay comission is essentially a body onto itself with only broad guidelines and can do what ever it likes.

"7K Wage reviews and wage-setting decisions
(1) The AFPC may determine the following: 14
(a) the timing and frequency of wage reviews; 15
(b) the scope of particular wage reviews; 16
(c) the manner in which wage reviews are to be conducted; 17
(d) when wage-setting decisions are to come into effect. 18
(2) For the purposes of performing its wage-setting function, the 19
AFPC may inform itself in any way it thinks appropriate, 20

In other words it could only hold a minimum wage setting meeting say once every two or three years and take advice from only the employers or the government. Employees or union (or employers) do not have to be consulted at all when arriving at decisions!

Dylan, so you think this is all OK and reasonable? Wow, half a dozen... sheesh, what a crock and what an affront to Parliamentary courtesy, tradition and process. Kiss your democracy goodbye.

Am I reading the Explanatory Memorandum wrong? It says two weeks annual leave!!

"Subsection 93F(2) would guarantee ... entitled to accrue 1/26 of the number of nominal hours worked during that four week period.
This is equivalent to two weeks of personal leave for employees whose hours do not change over the course of a 12 month period."

Dylan Kissane, when you say "Smith and Gillard would complain about the laws and try any tactic to slow it down even if they had of had a bound copy waiting for them in their seats this morning" ou're missing the point. Why should the opposition only be given a contentious piece of legislation on the morning of the day it is to be debated?

Surely the right thing to do, democratically, is to allow some time for everyone to read it, read up on the related legislation, and debate it properly. This legislation has the potential to have a huge impact on work in Australia. Do you really think that giving all our elected representatives a day, or even a week, to read it before commenting is unreasonable?

As a nation we seem to be doing pretty well by international standards. Are these IR changes so urgent that they have to be passed into law by this afternoon?

I'm sure you're right that Labor would like to delay the passage of the laws, but I honestly think that seeking a reasonable chance to look at and debate them fair.

Just looking at the Bill myself this afternoon, I've found at least a dozen sections that really worry me, and I'm only half-way through. If you think that giving our elected and experienced legislators even a fortnight ot consider these monumental changes is too much I feel sad about your lack of respect for democracy.

Dear Margo, the IR Bill reveals that the much-heralded "guarantee" of a minimum number of hours per week of 38 hours is illusory and a farce, and there is no guarantee of minimum hours.

Section 91C says that the guarantee is for an average of 38 hours per week and "reasonable additional hours". In determining what is "reasonable", one must look at any relevant factors, which include a risk to the health and safety of the employee, the employee's personal circumstances, the operational requirements of the workplace and any notice given.

So if the employer wants a forty-eight or fifty-eight hour week for the same money he can have it. If the extra ten or twenty hours per week endangers your health or affects adversely your personal life you still have to prove this outweighs the operational requirements of the employer and any other factors before you can say it is not reasonable.

This effectively abolishes the thirty-eight or forty hour week for all employees. How disingenuous of Howard to claim there was a guarantee of minimum hours!

Russell, the Bill and the Memoranda are 1200 pages or so put together. Imagine the government had printed them and distributed them to every member of the House this morning.

Would Smith still have found something to complain over? Yes. Would ALP members still have called out about propaganda? Yes.

Let's face facts: the government had copies on hand for the Opposition this morning and they still complained. Smith and Gillard would complain about the laws and try any tactic to slow it down even if they had of had a bound copy waiting for them in their seats this morning.

Ahh... my previous scare about two weeks annual leave is wrong...

Seems in 92D(2) we have four weeks annual leave (plus some extra for people on shift work), with the famous up to two week cashout option.

...And up to two weeks personal leave - sick, carer, compassionate.

Now to understand which workers will be eligible (4AA(1)), etc.

David Brown, 92E says that full-time employees are entitled to 4 weeks annual leave but they may cash out up to two weeks of this leave in an AWA for no less than their regular hourly rate of pay.

I have another two for the "Am I reading it wrong?" file. Section 83BS on page 59 seems to say you can get six months jail for saying that you an your employer have an AWA. Section 90I seems to be saying that the Fair Pay Commission can arbitrarily lower casual loading.

So, this is the democracy Australia voted for. One of, if not the, single biggest change affecting the Australian populace has but one day to be argued and amendedments recommended. How can this be acceptable in this country is beyond comprehension. I would expect every single voter who placed the Coalition as no 1 will hang their head in shame. Of course, this is a pipe-dream, as there are the usual squad of Howard lovers that would suggest NO debate should occur. Oh ye of feeble minds...

As is the nature of Howard, he is suppressing negative debate on his reform agenda, and ensuring his control of the Senate will carry him to his ideological zenith. So much for his comment that this Senate control will no go to his head.. another lie.

With these IR laws, we will, effectively, have no recourse of action for a perceived injustice in the workplace. With expensive litigation for any unfair dismissals, a de-toothing of the active Unions - with the net result of no representation of worker's rights, the growth in number of working poor, unemployment continuing to rise (not possible! you may cry... but don't ask me, ask NZ, where similar laws were introduced years ago, with, amongst rising inflation and lower wages, came high unemployment), and negative effects on the economy, why are they not given a proper and true enquiry process is staggering.

Howard will get his dream of a subserviant work force, however this dream comes at the cost of every other dream held by ordinary working Australians to have a fair go with their employment. That is purely unforgivable.

691 pages of Bill, the same amount to come in Regulations- this is a simplication? - and we'll still have more than one system since some States laws will contiue.

Most engaging is the Orwell-speak. The new bill can't bear to use the word "awards". They've become "pre-reform age instruments'.

Casual loading will be cut by 3% at least in Queensland. At present casual loading is 23% and it will cut down to 20% with the Commission able to reduce it even further.

Inspectors of the employee advocate will essesntially become reporter to the government for breaches of the migration Act. Ie they will be on the look out for illeagal immigrants and people who have overstayed their visas s86A

AWA's will essentially be top secret and if a government officer or inspector leaks anthing wuill be liable to six months imprisonment s83BS

Public holidays will be up for grabs. The government can proscibe that certain state sanctioned public holidays are no more. Union 'picnic days' are gone. I would inmagine that this means no more labour day public holiday and if it means something else I am sure labour day will be regualted out of existence.

The commision must take into account the finding of a government run 'Award review taskforce'.

Workers can be forced to take their annual leave entitlements if an employer decides to shut down a workplace . Ie basically casualise full time employees by forcing them to take all their paid leave when an employer wants then to.

There is much worse in there - I am only 1/4 the way through this thing.

Doctors get more power and fees. Mothers, carers, everyone who needs to take time off will have to go to the doctor for a letter or sign a stat dec as to whatever is happening.

Oh Crikey!!!

Dylan I propose a debate with you, where we captain respective teams. My team and I are allowed to have all the material on the topic for weeks prior. You get it as the debate begins. You only have one copy to share with your team mates.

Do you think that is fair?

Now you know how the Labor Party feels. If the waste of paper concerns you it could have been made electronically available to all members this morning prior to them entering the chamber.

Well Dylan Kissane, if I'd been presented with a bound copy of the Bill and asked to vote on it any time before the reprint of the proposed Workplace Relations Act (as amended by this bill) was available and I'd had about a week to comment on it, I'd be complaining too.

Just for the moment, let's forget the substance of the Bill and look at Schedule 5. How do you make sense of the amendments under a week given that garbage?

If one is "renumbering" an Act, why not just use numbers not the insane section 1AAQZRXV or whatever it may be. See the Taxation Assessment Act or the Corporations Act for examples.

Some poor bloody lawyer is going to have to work out what this gobledegook (one of my favourite in-court expressions for modern legislation) means.

Regulation Impact Statements okay but still no Family Impact Statement
Senator Steve Fielding, Family First Party
Media Release
2 November 2005

It is regrettable that the Government has released a 27-page Regulation Impact Statement with its industrial relations legislation but still refuses to release a Family Impact Statement.

It is important that business understands how the Government's legislation will affect them but it is equally important that families know how they will be affected.

The Government has not even used its Regulation Impact Statement to help families understand the full impact of the legislation on them.

In the Regulation Impact Statement, the Government is keen to highlight the benefits to employees, but makes no effort to detail the costs.

And we know there will be a cost to some families because even the Government admits there will be some cost. For example, the Government admits that unemployed people like "Billy" may well be forced to take a job even though they will not get paid public holidays, rest breaks, bonuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, penalty rates and shift/overtime loadings.

There could not be more important legislation for families to understand than the Government's industrial relations changes which will directly affect household income and not only conditions of work but also lifestyle.

It is disappointing that the Government claims to be a champion of the family but refuses to tell families how its industrial relations changes will affect them by releasing a Family Impact Statement.

Okay, I've scanned through about 350 pages. The unfair dismissal provisions are rather difficult to locate - but here are some operational provisions that demonstrate the effect of the Howard Government's proposed reforms:

1. Section 4AA defines employee as an individual who is employed, as described in the definition of employer.
2. Section 4AB defines employer as, "a constitutional corporation", "the Commonwealth", "a Commonwealth entity", "a person in connection with constitutional trade or commerce employs an individual as flight crew, maritime worker or waterside worker".
3. Section 7C applies the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (as amended) to the exclusion of:
   • State and Territory industrial laws

   • Laws regulating leave, other than long service leave
   • law allowing State courts to make "equal work for equal value" orders
   • Unfair contracts legislation
   • Laws governing union rights of entry
4. The legislation doesn't effect:
   • State and Territory legislation that deals with discrimination or equal opportunity law that is separate from State industrial legislation.

   • Laws dealing with superannuation entitlements
   • Workers compensation legislation
   • Child labour laws
   • Long service leave
   • Legislation regarding the observance of public holidays (except so far as dealing with payrates for public holidays)
   • Law regulating the method and frequency of pay and deductions that can be made from pay
   • Law regulating training and apprenticeships (with the exception of pay applicable to the training and apprenticeships)
   • Law relating to industrial action in workplaces that maintain essential services
   • Law relating to jury service
   • Law relating to the formation of employer and employee associations and membership of those associations

Some general observations are that the government seems to have cleverly attempted to stitch up industrial relations arrangements using both the corporations power and the trade and commerce power. At present the trade and commerce power appears to only extend to certain categories of employees - ie. waterside, airline and maritime workers. Theoretically, there'd be nothing to stop the government expanding the use of the "trade and commerce" power to obtain a wider coverage.

Just a few thoughts.

I said earlier that I think 83BS and 90I look worrying. Here are some others...

Section 96D refers to "union greenfields agreements" and "employer greenfields agreements". For people unfamiliar with greenfields agreements, these are agreements made in advance of a new workplace starting up to cover the conditions of people who will be employed there.

Union agreements involve the employer working out with a union or unions what workers should be entitled to. I can't for the life of me work out who employers negotiate an "employer greenfields agreements" with. Themselves, I guess. I can see it now, "I'm going to start a new business and I will give the workers minimum wage and I'll negotiate away their entitlement. Do I agree with me? Yes, I do."

Section 106A g(i) specifies that employees can take industrial action if there is an imminent threat to safety, but the burden of proof is on them to show that the workplace is not safe. As any student of philosophy or science will tell you it is logically impossible to prove a negative proposition such as: "this is not safe".

However, people shouldn't fret too much about this sort of thing I guess. I mean after all, in the same overall section of document we find it is perfectly allowable to go on strike. So long as you have the written permission of your employer that is!

Section 109 outlines the complicated secret ballot provisions employees needs to fulfil to legally take industrial action. And, of course, there's a huge further disincentive that the employees have to pay for the whole process - Australian Electoral Commission involvement and all.

But, why should we worry about the circumstances for industrial action? Section 110 says that it can only happen during a bargaining period after an agreement has expired. How long will bargaining periods be? Well, not long I imagine, section 112 says that the Minister can arbitrarily cut off a bargaining period if the employees look like striking.

Section 118 seems to be seeking to override state awards. 118D and 118O indicate that the Minister can intervene in the industrial relations commission "rationalizing" and "simplifying" awards.

If I'm reading section 170AA right, you can work a 10 hour shift with only one 30 minute meal break.

Section 179 puts a limit of only 6 years on suing employers for unpaid wages or superannuation.

On top of these there are many sections that repeal other sections of industrial law. I don't know what these might be, if anyone could highlight some of the ones that are a substantial change that would be fantastic.

Also, does anyone know whether this Bill includes terms and conditions related to unfair dismissal, or is that in separate legislation still to come?

Damian, try this...

Beazley clarifies comments on IR reforms.

Am I reading this?

Workers face jail under new IR laws: Beazley

"Workers could be thrown in jail if they reveal they have an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) under the Government's workplace changes, Labor says."

Right? I can’t believe what I’m reading. It says here that “…the laws, introduced to Parliament today, were filled with catch 22s, including banning workers from discussing whether they have an AWA. ‘To reveal the fact that a person is in receipt of an AWA, [is] an offence that can produce a jail term’, Mr Beazley told reporters.”

Is this true?

Guy Curtis, you are right. Employers can negotiate a greenfields agreement with themselves. So, close down business today, reopen the business as a greenfields business next week with new terms and conditions negotiated with between the CEO and him/her self, and then place ads for new employees. Your choice - you want your old job back? No worries. Just sign here on the new renegotiated terms. Don't like the new terms. No worries. Get a job down the road.

Yep! Workchoices - no choices. Read it all carefully over the next few months. This is our brave new world. Check out the section dealing with the Australian Fair Pay Commisssion. Thank heavens that pesky old AIRC is gone. Now we can relax. It will be up to the government appointee whether there will be an adjustment of wages at all. Check out industrial action. If workers want to take protected industrial action, a mandated secret ballot (Electoral Commission) 20% of the cost to be paid for by the union or employees. Employer lockout? No problems. Three days notice and bingo, out you go. Duress? No such thing. It's just that if you don't sign up to the new terms and conditions in your new AWA you won't be entitled to a wage rise, a promotion, or anything else. But hey, it's your choice!

Everything the ACTU said about these laws is and was true, only it is even worse than predicted. Whose the liar now? But remember, they are doing it for all of us-so we can earn more. It's incredible how good they are.

Go here for full details - www.yourrightsatwork.com.au.

Would Dylan Kissane please confess that he is a Liberal Party stooge? Is he going to tell us how the members of the new underclass (AND THERE WILL BE MANY) will be able to live whilst working at the poverty line.

And if you think this is a diatribe, just think carefully about what John Howard's "international competitiveness" means. It means paying the workers as little as possible (think Chinese or Indian rural peasant here) whilst extracting as high a price for the goods from the market (in order to maximise profits). In case you disagree here I suggest you study Economics 101.

This is the beginning of a very painful road to the same place that most of the workers in the USA "enjoy". I hope you enjoy it too!

Is the government rushing through its terror laws for a terrorist attack or a workers revolt!

So Mr Howard's guarantee is his record?

That would be a good slogan for the counter-campaign - his guarantee is his record, followed by lists of what he said would happen, what actually happened and his justification for the difference - "I was acting on the best information available at the time".

I have been reliably informed that the 38 hour per week 'average' provision can be used to enforce 12 hour on, 12 hour off shift work [say for example in Mining operations and where you fly in and work 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off]. Just so long as, over a one year period, the average comes out to 38 hours per week.

Draconian ain't the half of it- try also devious, disastrous, demonic and down-right anti-deluvian !

And now we have the legislation to prove it. So please everyone, get up from your computers on November 15 and stand up and be counted at the National Day of Protest at this horrible new form of legalised servitude[unless, of course, you are one of the lucky ones with skills you can parlay about the marketplace to the highest bidder-that is until the ever-receding horizon of change brings us skilled workers from overseas to bid against you for your jobs].

And surely sniping at the Labor Party needs to stop now and the attacks need to be directed where the essential malevolence in this country resides, not merely the incompetence.

Stop Press: Peter Hendy of the ACCI has expressed his dismay that the legislation does not allow for Sick Pay to be 'cashed out'! Is this man entirely drained of the milk of human kindness?

Grant Giachin, they couldn't make one big enough - nor one that would go sufficiently deep to reach the nineth circle where traitors are frozen for all eternity (if I remember my Dante correctly).

Well, I got my 20 cents in already by bullk emailing the pollies a joint complaint about both the IR and anti-terror bills. All I can say is Australia voted 3 times to elect Howard and his band of stooges and they are now starting to reap the rewards of their wise decision. If this sounds like "I told you so" so be it.

But don't worry, people will have completely forgotten about this by the time the next election comes around, at which point we'll undoubtably be under a high terrorist threat from marble-wielding peace activists. One thing you can say about Howard is he keeps the ball rolling - always harder to hit a moving target.

It's a pity that sydney tunnel wasn't being built under Parliament House. The prospect of a great big hole in he ground opening up & swallowing Paliament, Johnny & the rest of the treacherous swines is about the only thing that can save this country at the moment.

Margo: That's sedition, Grant. Go directly to jail.

Damian says that it is illegal to divulge whether you have an AWA or not. Clearly, this is a freedom taken from us if that is true. Some time just prior to the next election we should have a Divulge your AWA Day.

I have often wondered why politicians deserve the title "The Honourable..." After today's sham perhaps the prefix "Dis" should be added.

Damian, hopefully you're over feeling "a bit relieved".

Labor's first foray into public attacks on the IR legislation result in a hasty clarification from the opposition leader...? (Not sure how the misinterpretation happened - ie. was it a media misunderstanding of his comments or Kim Beazley's misunderstanding of the legislation).

Not a great start anyway!

Thanks for that clarification link Jenny. I’m relieved… a bit… I think. The prospect of facing jail for speaking out about much of Howard’s other policies is scary enough!!

Victoria Hendy like Howard is predictable...and also very bad news.

I still say this IR legislation is Howard's Achilles' Heal, providing it has time for the negative effects to begin filtering through. He may pre-empt that by going to an election early. There will be many workers that are well-off which it won't effect for many years, but they will have younger family members and relatives that it will touch. If Labor run a clear policy of dismantling the new changes if elected and reverting to the older style of collective bargaining, they will be on a certain winner. Next year the economy is going to stagnate somewhat if one takes into account retail figures in the last few months. Even with Christmas upon us, the signs are not good. I reckon the real problems with the property market will also hit hard later next year.

The hokum presented in the failed Coalition party adverts about simplifying awards and such doesn't wash with anybody. In a way I feel that Beazley is boxed in with his support for the terrorism laws - from reading a variety of suburban newspapers and the locals reactions, the majority feeling is they now fear they are about to be murdered in their beds by maurading Alquaeda members running amok in the country. But fiddle with Aussie's wallets and you are on very shaky ground.

The proposed industrial laws will dramatically affect the quality of life for many Australians and their families.

What concerns me also, is that they appear to be closely tied to the new Sedition laws and definitions proposed under the new Anti-terror Bill.

The defence for sedition section clearly mentions industrial actions and industrial relations. It would appear that Howard means to define disputing workers as terrorists also. This makes me very afraid...

As for this 'new' terror intelligence please....

Why can't the general public see through this guy?

I wonder how many would be supportive of the new anti - terror Bill if they knew that Australian workers may now be classed as 'potential' terrorists.

Why are the Labor Premiers and the Labor leadership supporting this?

Victoria Collins, the legislation, as I understood it, does not set the averaging time for the 38-hour week 12 months. It could be longer or shorter as the employer and employee negotiate, or whatever the period of the agreement is.

On a different note, I think Labor's behaviour in question time and Grant Giachin's comments are indicative of the level of frustration informed people are feeling over this Government's behaviour.

Historian Richard Carrier makes a good point:

"Because we agree to allow the laws to be changed through persuasion and argument, and allow everyone to have asome voice in that process, people are generally comfortable with an imperfect society, knowing they can work to improve it without resorting to violence...It follows that political violence from oppressed or dissenting groups or individuals stems ... from their perception that they do not have the power to peacefully reform the government."

In short, if you have a government who does not allow a say from all sides people who disagree may give up on democratic processes.

Kim Beazley is presently talking in Parliament and talking with great passion about IR legislation and how ordinary people can see through the reasons for the law. The laws catapulting us back to a nasty Pre-Federation Liberal Party. The Bill is like a nest of termites he stated, continuing to take from work.

Mr. Beazley has announced that he will revoke the IR legislation if elected at the next election.

Fantastic!!

Mr Beazley stated with a friend like Mr Howard who needs enemies.

In a previous post I suggested we have a Divulge your AWA day; If your Labor Representative is informed they may broadcast it in Parliament.

Thanks Claudia Stephens.

The drongos from the Coalition are saying trust us, we are truthful, stop the scare campaign against us!! It's a bit rich when Mr Howard uses fear to get his way, just like the dirty trick of announcing a need for heightened awareness in relation to terrorist activity.

Apart from Dylan Kissane's comments about the availability of the Bill, where are the serried ranks of Howard's warriors championing the "revolutionary benefits" of this courageous piece of legislation? Have they all had their fingers mangled in an industrial accident?

Type with your noses, or a pencil in your teeth or your toes or something chaps (funny, they all seem to be chaps don't they?). Laud (or is that Lord?) the benefits, list them for the unwashed worker. He has nothing to lose but his chains - oh, sorry, that was GST wasn't it.

Bring forward the cogent arguments about the mechanism by which this will rejuvenate the workplace. Name the sections which will bring industrial enlightenment.

Meanwhile, kiddies, never fear: the corporations power simply cannot be extended to cover this rubbish.

From a legal point of view, the Bill will take about two weeks to criticise in detail.

Guy Curtis, Arundhati Roy has some very interesting things to say on this subject in contemporary society - I recommend the short book The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile - Conversations with Arundhati Roy: Interviews by David Barsamian.

Today's Courier Mail has a link to a survey re our opinions on some of the broad changes mooted by the IR legislation (pending).

The link is half way down this page.

It does seem to be one of those companies that collect email addresses but the survey can be completed without providing an email address.

I have completed the survey simply as a way of voicing my opinion. You may want to add your voice too.

I find it interesting that Hendy of the ACCI is lauding the IR legislation as being a great mechanism to reduce wages growth - yet we have Howard stating as recently as today that it will strengthen wages growth.

Who does one believe - HRH or his main cheerleader (personally I think the latter is on the money). Wages will inevitably be driven down for those who are in lowskilled roles. Even a cursory glance at the legislation shows it is heavily slanted toward employers.

Keith Antonysen: "Mr. Beazley has announced that he will revoke the IR legislation if elected at the next election. Fantastic!!"

Just like they were going get rid of the GST!!

The IR legislation is going to do Labor a favour. Once the unions are out of the way and the thugs are not controlling things, Labor might have a chance at the next election.

Of course they have to get rid of Beazley, Macklin, Crean and Gillard first, but that's the easy part.

Alan Curran you refer to the thugs of the Union movement; what about the thugs from the Liberal Party. Administrative abuse being a strong feature of the current governmet -DIMIA is the obvious example, but it happens in Centrelink as well.

There is already talk about people being adversely affected by the you beaut new IR legislation, broadcast on that leftie program Today Tonight. Well done Mr. Andrews, last night trying to defend the Liberal stance that workers should earn $50 less per week for wages in previous wage claims (7.30 Report) and today people losing jobs; or substantially getting lower wages.

It is not congruent for the Government to argue against wage claims as they have done and then say that IR is better than sliced bread and spending $50 million trying to convince us on what should be a self evident fact if it is so good.

Let's call it what it is. It's rampant Conservative idealogy - small people like myself should know our place.

Mr. Keating talked about becoming a Banana Republic in a metaphorical manner. Mr. Howard is taking us there.

Alan Curran, maybe you can list your wage conditions, e.g. Loadings? Holiday pay? Overtime loadings? Sick pay? ALL fought and won by the Union movement. You have these wage conditions because of those so called thugs.

When my father was striking for your wage conditions our family went without. What were you doing at time? How ungrateful.

As a 16 year old he fought for your liberties and your freedoms you enjoy today, as a young father he worked as dogman and joined the union movement. Every time he went out on strike it was always to hope that his kids yours and mine would work in better conditions that he had to (broken glass on toilet seats).

I'd like to see you tell the Hardy’s asbestos victims about those so called union thugs.

Karen Stephenson, you ask about my “wage conditions, e.g. Loadings? Holiday pay? Overtime loadings? Sick pay? ALL fought and won by the Union movement”.

First of all I have none of these as I run my own business and employ 45 people, who I look after very well.

I have a business loan of $800.000, I work approx 67 hours per week, and some weeks I work all weekend to make sure the business stays afloat.
As long as the union does not interfere in my business like they did last year, my workers will have a job. I will not let the union into my business premises again, and I have the backing of all my staff.

Karen, you can rant and rave all you want about the unions but they are a lost cause, except for Burrows and Combet who are doing very well out of them.

Remember how they saved all the jobs at Ansett ?. Great job there eh.
If they are doing such a good job, why is their membership falling?.
By the way I do not understand “the glass on toilet seats bit”.

Allan Curran: "Remember how they saved all the jobs at Ansett ?. Great job there eh."

Now, as you well know, Howard sat on his hands on this one, refusing to enter into any dialogue with Air New Zealand/The NZ Government to prevent this. The pathetic attempts to brush over the issue by trying to bring in the consortium of Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox were shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Howard had no idea how to handle it!

The Unions fought to ensure that the redundant employee's entitlements, seemingly lost due to the collapse of the airline and the governments scandalous inaction, were, in some way, able to be paid. The government relented, to some part, but only because it was an election year! The pressure on the parent company and the government to ensure full entitlements will be seen as a major win for the union movement.

Being an employer, are you almost salivating at these IR changes as we go crashing back to the 1800's, where the employer ruled and employees were nothing more than chattels?

Re Labor's chances at the next election, I think we have/will see Howard shoot himself in the foot on this one, making it a easy path to a Labor victory come 2007.