Skip to main content

Work Choice: A monster in the making

"There is a shark in the water for John Howard and his Government. It could bring the Federal Government down, and there is already blood in the water. The Government's private polling says so.

The menace is not interest rates, or petrol prices, or inflation, or terrorism, though they all add to insecurity. No, the larger menace is the WorkChoices legislation, combined with a scare campaign by the unions.

It is workplace insecurity, and a growing sense of unfairness in the workplace, which poses a danger to Howard. And the Prime Minister has compounded this problem by a political misjudgement. This misjudgement has a name - Kevin Andrews. He is the man who was charged with drafting, implementing, explaining and defending the changes to the Workplace Relations Act that produced one of the most ambitious workplace reforms ever passed in this country.

Andrews looks like an undertaker and sounds like an undertaker, and he could end up burying the Howard Government unless he is replaced or lifts his game. First Andrews delivered a flawed and mountainously complex piece of legislation, then he was ambushed by the unions."

So writes Paul Sheehan in the SMH. Lest it be thought that Sheehan is only "attacking" the Government, the Opposition and ACTU are also the butt of his criticism. Read the article here. One thing is for sure. The IR laws, and their effect, will be a critical issue at the next election - by which time interest-rate hikes will have well and truly kicked in.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more