Talking Politics

[Legends of 2017]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=65310

Howard backs down on Work Choices
Friday May 4 02:10 AEST
Prime Minister John Howard has backflipped on industrial relations and will effectively revive the "no-disadvantage test" for workers earning less than $75,000 a year who sign individual agreements.

Mr Howard will introduce formal assurance that workers who trade away penalty rates, shift allowances, holiday pay or overtime will not be worse off, according to newspaper reports.

Fairfax and News Ltd newspapers said Mr Howard will announce the new "fairness test".

Under the control of the Office of the Employment Advocate, to be renamed the Workplace Authority, employers will have to "fairly and adequately" compensate people who sign up to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).




The compensation will have to be "bona fide" and can include more money, flexible working hours, extra conditions such as car parking spaces, or fewer hours.

"It has to be something reasonable in exchange," Mr Howard was quoted as saying in The Sydney Morning Herald.

"That's a fair return."

Mr Howard acknowledged the need to soften Work Choices.

"There is an uneasiness in the community that it might become the norm for people to lose their penalty rates for nothing in return and we want to stop that," he said.

"This puts us in the middle ground of the industrial relations debate."

Mr Howard has stopped short of actually reviving the mandated "no-disadvantage test" as advocated by Labor but recognised that people were losing conditions.

"It's a strengthening of the safety net but it doesn't affect the fundamentals of the system."

The move came as the mining industry offered a compromise to end the impasse between Labor and business over the federal opposition's new industrial relations policy.

The Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA) said it was prepared to accept a return to the old no-disadvantage test, which had been scrapped by Work Choices, if it helped keep individual contracts in place.

The changes by Mr Howard come into effect from midnight next Sunday but only apply to new AWAs.

The Office of Workplace Services will also be renamed the Workplace Ombudsman

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21669469-661,00.html

'Fairness test' to protect battlersJohn Ferguson and Ben Packham

May 04, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
JOHN Howard has dramatically shifted position on his controversial workplace laws.

In an attempt to win back support lost to Labor, the Prime Minister will reveal a "fairness test" to protect workers on less than $75,000 a year.
Workers who strike agreements that remove penalty rates, shift, weekend or holiday loadings will be guaranteed compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal election: Gillard linked to slur
Freeloaders pay: Plan for fee on workers
Andrew Bolt: Rudd, the great divider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Howard, who will detail the plan today in Melbourne, is likely to sell the fairness test as a "battler's clause" to protect low and middle income Australia.

The plan will eventually affect hundreds of thousands of workers employed on individual contracts and outside the award system.

It will take effect on agreements struck from May 7 but will not affect existing agreements.

The plan involves workers getting compensation in cash, entitlements such as family-friendly provisions, or perks like car parking. Agreements would be lodged with a new body called the Workplace Authority, which would replace the Office of the Employment Advocate.

The fairness test amounts to a partial restoration of the so-called no disadvantage test, which was axed by the Howard Government under WorkChoices.

The former test ensured that workers could bargain away benefits such as penalty rates and leave loading but not be worse off compared to the award.

Restoring a similar test is a major concession that there were flaws in the original legislation, which threatened workers' take-home pay and entitlements.

Under WorkChoices, the Government replaced the award safety net with just five conditions covering a minimum wage, a 38-hour week, four weeks' holidays, sick leave and 12 months' maternity leave.

Workers signing contracts could try to negotiate better deals but the new arrangements meant conditions such as penalty rates could be written off.

Labor has seen opposition to the Government's IR system as an election-winning advantage.

I'm confused. Didn't Howard and co. claim that under the new legislation 12 months ago NO worker would be worse off? If so, why the need for this new legislation? :headscratch :headscratch ???

 

[Chelsea]

Both parties do their share of 'mind changing', and Rudd seems to be following Howard in many ways, as he knows from the past Labour 'stuff-ups' what the Australian people want, so he will try and appease us for now. I won't vote for Rudd simply because I think it's best to stick with the experience and after all, this country is functioning well under Howard... also Rudd is trying to be Mr. Nice Guy...all smiles and being smarmy at the moment, but I think there is another side to him, which we haven't really seen, although there has been a glimpse here and there. If he wins the election, then we will see the 'real Kevin Rudd'.
I wouldn't trust Gillard as far as I could throw her. She has one thing on her agenda, and that's to be the first woman P.M. in this country, so little Kevvy better put his knife-proof vest on, because he might feel the twinges in his back later.
If Rudd gets in, the Unions will be to the fore again... more strikes and unrest in the building industry, I guess.... and the economy might take a battering. Labour don't seem to do their sums right. eg Bracks and co.
Rudd is recruiting 'celebrities to run for Parliament.. one being the wife of one of the Cornes from Port Adelaide. They interviewed her on tv the other night.. asked her some political questions, and she didn't have a clue. Do we really want people in Parliament just because they are ex ABC newsreaders, or footballers wives? I don't need to mention the change of heart that Peter Garrett has shown re the Environment. Can't take him too seriously anymore either.

 

[Legends of 2017]

I agree with most if not all of what you are saying chelsea. I'm getting sick of the 'celebrity' candidate myself. Just because they are 'famous' doesn't mean they are any better than a local who knows the electorate. I'd like to see a law stating that a person can only stand in the seat if they have lived their for at least 5 years. That would stop these blow ins from being put up, just because they are celebrities, or are owed favours by the party etc. If celebrities get voted in then the electorate deserves them as far as I'm concerned. They have no right to complain down the track that they don't know anything about their constituents.

 

[Liverpool]

Legends,

I don't think Howard is "backing down" as such.

Workchoices was brought in, and the Government has always stated that amendments and fine tuning to the legislation would be carried out as everybody got used to the new laws.
This shouldn't be too much of a shock, as even the Workplace Relations Act has been amended time and time again after its inception.
Have these amendments been seen as a 'back down'?
No, of course not.

The biggest threat to Rudd becoming PM isn't Howard, but Gillard.
She seems to take a very aggressive and iron-fisted approach, such as her "In an election year, the political contest is a pretty hard, fast place to be, it's a contact sport, if you like, with a lot of injury." comment....which will only deter businesses and fence-sitting voters, away from voting ALP in the next election.
Gillard had to backdown from this comment, and said she was 'just joking'...yeah....sure ::

http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=378121

Now THAT is what I call a backdown.

Today, we have the ALP's "IR policy" looking at being amended to suit the mining industry in WA....so is this a backdown, because they are looking at making amendments, seeing that Howard and the Government are being accused of backing-down for making amendments to their WorkChoices policy?:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21661851-2,00.html

To me, BOTH parties are either making amendments/concessions....or BOTH are backing down....take your pick.

 

[Legends of 2017]

There is a difference, in my mind at least, with the backing down of both parties. One is in government, the other isn't. The one in government has made decisions that have affected many people, the other hasn't. If they get into power and then they change their minds, or back down from their policies, then I would be thinking the same thing about them. The Howard government said from the start that noone would be worse off and rammed through their legislation. After looking at it now, as an election looms, they are admitting, though not saying that in words, that they were either wrong with it or were too hasty in making it legislation. They didn't listen, or want to listen, to anyone who had reservations against it at the start.
This isn't a libs/howard bashing by the way. I'll be looking at labor/bracks too. They are all the same once in power

 

[Liverpool]

Legends,

The fact of the matter is, that many legislations that are passed through parliament, as law....are then amended time and time again.
In between these amendments, people are affected by the current law.
That is life.
Situations like this have always occurred, and will continue to occur, whoever is in Government.
Laws are constantly changed to reflect precedents that have occurred and to close loopholes that could be damaging, and to protect individuals/groups in the future.

If the Government are making amendments to Workchoices, to protect individuals/groups from certain aspects of their legislation that have been taken advantage of, and to close certain loopholes....then to me, that isn't a "backdown", but fine-tuning to get it right for everyone.
This should be commended, not criticised.

No law/legislation that passes is "perfect", especially complex issues like industrial relations, where there is a fine line between protecting workers rights, but at the same time, protecting businesses, as well as how this will affect the economy of the nation in the future.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Legends,

The fact of the matter is, that many legislations that are passed through parliament, as law....are then amended time and time again.
In between these amendments, people are affected by the current law.
That is life.
Situations like this have always occurred, and will continue to occur, whoever is in Government.
Laws are constantly changed to reflect precedents that have occurred and to close loopholes that could be damaging, and to protect individuals/groups in the future.

If the Government are making amendments to Workchoices, to protect individuals/groups from certain aspects of their legislation that have been taken advantage of, and to close certain loopholes....then to me, that isn't a "backdown", but fine-tuning to get it right for everyone.
This should be commended, not criticised.

No law/legislation that passes is "perfect", especially complex issues like industrial relations, where there is a fine line between protecting workers rights, but at the same time, protecting businesses, as well as how this will affect the economy of the nation in the future.

That's true Livers and I have no problem with legislation being changed from time to time. But, when they bought this in, they refused to listen to those that pointed out it's flaws and unfairness. It might be the cynic in me, but an election coming up, behind in the opinion polls, polls showing the unpopularity of this particular piece of legislation, I suppose now would be a good time for the government to say there were problems with it and we will try and fix it

 

[evo]

This guy is really bad news IMO.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/party-powerbrokers-face-rankandfile-rebellion/2007/05/02/1177788228108.html

It's a worrying sign of the future direction for the Liberal party

 

[RemoteTiger]

Its a backdown and politically motivated to take the steam out of the opposition's momentum before an election.

Work choices is a mis noma - when a person is going for a job Mr Howard has said that person has the choice of Collective Bargaining under Union direction - collective bargaining without Union direction - common law contracts - or - AWAs

The reality of the situation is the employer says we will employ you if you agree to this AWA - providing no choice at all to the propective employee (worker) - and - if she/he does not like it then the employer will find someone else who does.

Under this legislation we have seen employers sack employees - to creat a vacant position - then fill that position with a new worker on less pay.

The fundamentals are all in favour of the employer - and some would say so they should be - after all it is their capital that is creating the job in the first place. On the other hand it is the workers time, effort and expertise that enables that capital to return bigger dividends to the employer.

So should not both the capitalist and the worker have protection? Yes - but - under AWAs there is little or no protection for the worker - plus the worker is traditionally at a disadvantage to the capitalist as the worker is usually not as schooled in the ways of negotiation.

Lastly - a theory - is Mr Howard endevoring to force AWAs onto the Australian workplace so as to remove the influence of Unions - thus decreasing the membership and power of the union movement - which traditionally is the foundation for financing the ALP - this then would debilitate the ALP through lack of funding which would mean the Conservative parties would have little or no opposition.

However, this vacuum could attract a new opposition - one founded on the principals of the Democrats or heaven forbid the Greenies - that would make for a great Australia - please remember under the Westminster system the objective was to keep the Government in power accountable - the slogan being "A government should only be as powerful as its opposition allows it."

Alas we have had - until now - some very ordinary opposition personnel - at the very least now we have an alternative.

Personally I hope Kevin Rudd wins the election - why? Because Australia needs a shake up - we have ventured far to far away from the accountability of the Westminster system - we are currently placing ourselves and our country in a position where the fall is going to hurt a lot more later than it would if completed sooner. That fall being the public scrutiny and accountability of our leaders and ministers - if we continue to decrease the checks and balances of our government system we are opening ourselves to the ruthlessness of narrow minded people who will be far more concerned with WIIFM (Whats In IT For ME) than the greater good of the country and hence the Australian People.

Please check the record of this cabinet and prime minister - he and his colleagues have laughed in the very face of how our forefathers set up the running of this country.

Ministers are no longer advised by Heads of Departments about the activity within the Ministers portfolio. Ministerial Aides are the conduit to the minister by the head of the department - this means the Aide has the right to tell the minister only what he (the aide) thinks the minister should know. Hence we get the situation that when the *smile* hits the fan the Minister can claim "I was never told" - the Head of the Department takes the rap and the minister goes on his merry way. THIS MEANS THAT THERE ARE FACELESS MEN AND WOMEN RUNNING THE COUNTRY. These men and women who have the title of Ministerial Aide are not elected are intersted solely in their careers hence the WIIFM and have the abilty to mould into the background when the *smile* hits the fan - leaving the Head of the Department to take the blame.

This has caused the Federal Pulic Service to become political (that is mask the truth in a way the Aide will bring it to the Ministers attention)

Another foundation stone for the Westminster Government System is the Public Servant must always be apolitical - presenting the bare facts of the operation of the portfolio to the minister only.

If you do not believe this - look at the AWB Affair with the bribes to Saddam (Downer and Vaile must have known what was happening, otherwise they were not running their portfolio's correctly) - look at the purchase of the new fighter planes for the RAAF where Mr Howard made the decision without consulting the Department of Defence or his cabinet or Treasury ($12b of expense on aircraft that the RAAF have dismissed as not being functional for the Australian Defence requirement) - look at the Murray-Darling $10b water plan where the Prime Minister did not consult his Treasurer nor the Treasury to see if we had the funds - look at the Immigration scandals where Australian Citizens have been deported (The Head of the Department had advised the Ministers Aides every step of the way but amazingly the minister knew nought about it - the head of the department and his 2 deputies were "sacked". They are all now members of the Australian Diplomatic Corp in Washington - if that is a sacking then please sack me)

BUT NONE OF THIS MEANS JACK *smile* TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN MELBOURNE, SYDNEY OR WHERE EVER IN AUSTRALIA because it does not affect them directly - well it will once the leaders of this Government become far too arrogant far too aloof and dismiss the Westminster System of checks and balances when creating laws that divide Australians further and line their friends and their own pockets at the same time.

What we are witnessing is the demise of the Australian Government System - and every Australian should be screaming about this.

 

[jb03]

This guy is really bad news IMO.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/party-powerbrokers-face-rankandfile-rebellion/2007/05/02/1177788228108.html

It's a worrying sign of the future direction for the Liberal party

Which guy evo, the article mentions numerous people from both sides of politics?

 

[Anduril]

Well done Bill :clap
You've just alienated a large group of voters.
As for your comments John...... soft!

 

[evo]

This guy is really bad news IMO.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/party-powerbrokers-face-rankandfile-rebellion/2007/05/02/1177788228108.html

It's a worrying sign of the future direction for the Liberal party

Which guy evo, the article mentions numerous people from both sides of politics?

Yeah sorry.I was talking about Hawke.Young Liberal head kicker.Bad news that guy.

If he gets established he'll make the Mad Monk Abbott seem like a moderate.

Fascist.

 

[an_oxford_man]

Well done Bill :clap
You've just alienated a large group of voters.
As for your comments John...... soft!

What an absolute stooge!

 

[Liverpool]

Its a backdown and politically motivated to take the steam out of the opposition's momentum before an election.

Rubbish Remote.
The Government has ALWAYS stated that there will be amendments and fine tuning with WorkChoices as employers and employees get their heads around it.
I don't see how that is a backdown, when the Government would be neglectful if they did NOT amend legislation to close loopholes or change parts of the legislation that individuals/groups are taking advantage of.

The reality of the situation is the employer says we will employ you if you agree to this AWA - providing no choice at all to the propective employee (worker) - and - if she/he does not like it then the employer will find someone else who does.
Under this legislation we have seen employers sack employees - to creat a vacant position - then fill that position with a new worker on less pay.

And what is wrong with that, Remote?
It may not be morally nice to do something like that to another person, but it is an open market, and if a business thinks it can hire someone of equal talent and skill, for a cheaper price, then why not?
We saw a recent example from Priceline:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1905702.htm

Why should a company have their hands tied, and watch themselves go down the toilet, because they are stuck paying employees top-dollar....when there are people who are unemployed, who are willing to do the job, for cheaper rates?

We have had enough of manufacturing going offshore, because they financially cannot keep paying top dollar for employees here.....which leads to mass sacking or redundancies.

By hiring someone cheaper.....yes, admittedly you are sacking someone and making them unemployed....but you are also giving someone else who is unemployed a chance to work and earn a wage, as well as ensuring the financial survival of companies, therefore saving many peoples jobs.

Alas we have had - until now - some very ordinary opposition personnel - at the very least now we have an alternative.

That alternative is not going to be far off where Howard is at the moment.
Gillard is trying to steer the ALP ship away from Howard's policies, but Rudd, as the "articulate and intelligent man" that the ALP supporters on this forum proclaimed, has sided with Howard's policies on many issues already.
He knows he will not become PM, if he takes a very opposite stance to the Libs.....but he also has to balance on the tightrope, and not alienate the unions and lefties out there.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Its a backdown and politically motivated to take the steam out of the opposition's momentum before an election.

Rubbish Remote.
The Government has ALWAYS stated that there will be amendments and fine tuning with WorkChoices as employers and employees get their heads around it.
I don't see how that is a backdown, when the Government would be neglectful if they did NOT amend legislation to close loopholes or change parts of the legislation that individuals/groups are taking advantage of.

Liverpool,

John Howard openly admitted it himself - he said he listened 3 years ago when the Petrol was too expensive and moved on that - he is now listening to the people who are saying they want some way of fairness being included - so he is moving on that. That is a backdown to his original belief that market forces will shape the value of AWAs - his words not mine.

The reality of the situation is the employer says we will employ you if you agree to this AWA - providing no choice at all to the propective employee (worker) - and - if she/he does not like it then the employer will find someone else who does.
Under this legislation we have seen employers sack employees - to creat a vacant position - then fill that position with a new worker on less pay.

And what is wrong with that, Remote?
It may not be morally nice to do something like that to another person, but it is an open market, and if a business thinks it can hire someone of equal talent and skill, for a cheaper price, then why not?
We saw a recent example from Priceline:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1905702.htm

Why should a company have their hands tied, and watch themselves go down the toilet, because they are stuck paying employees top-dollar....when there are people who are unemployed, who are willing to do the job, for cheaper rates?

We have had enough of manufacturing going offshore, because they financially cannot keep paying top dollar for employees here.....which leads to mass sacking or redundancies.

By hiring someone cheaper.....yes, admittedly you are sacking someone and making them unemployed....but you are also giving someone else who is unemployed a chance to work and earn a wage, as well as ensuring the financial survival of companies, therefore saving many peoples jobs.

I see you feel there are moral issues that are being disregarded - but in the end that is OK - fine your opinion not mine.

BUT - if a company is using its workforce as a mere item on its Profit and Loss Statement then it deserves to be in trouble. Your comments above show that you believe company profits are far more important than company personnel - I suppose you are going to claim without profits there are no personnel - but the same could be said in reverse. Proof is that those companies that I have dealt with in the past that churn and burn their employees always seem to go broke or get bought out as very cheap investments. Whereas those that value their staff - share the company profits through looking after their staff seem to go from strength to strength.




I notice you provided no rebuke on my comments on the way John Howard has ignored the values, checks and balances of the Westminster Government System.

Clever men like you Liverpool know it is impossible to defend the indefensible.

Should we address how the RAAF Fighter Planes purchase was agreed - one of John Howard's finest moments - whilst in the White House meeting with his buddy George Bush - "not a problem George we can wait for those fighters to be built, what can you supply me in the meantime. They sound good, excellent we'll have $12b worth. Lovely to do business with you Georgey. Oh by the way, when do you want these new Australian Fighter jets deployed in Iraq?"

Time for me to stop - I just hope you see that 3 years of Rudd will help right the wrongs of Howard - then we can turn to Costello or Turnbull for 3 to 6 years then back again - just to keep the Government elected knowing it is there to serve all the people not just the elite or the chosen few who believe in its philosophy.......Cheers RT

 

[Liverpool]

Liverpool,
John Howard openly admitted it himself - he said he listened 3 years ago when the Petrol was too expensive and moved on that - he is now listening to the people who are saying they want some way of fairness being included - so he is moving on that. That is a backdown to his original belief that market forces will shape the value of AWAs - his words not mine.

Remote,
How is the Government having an idea, putting it through as legislation, and then 'tinkering' with it by listening to people....classed as a "backdown"?
I'm sure Wallace has a gameplan for the Geelong game this weekend, and it won't be until we are into the 1st-quarter, whether he'll know whether that gameplan is working or not....and he'll make adjustments and moves, to the original plan, to make it a successful one, as the game unfolds.
Is Wallace "backing down" because he has amended his original gameplan, because things have changed since the original was put into action?
No, of course not....he is "amending" his original idea, for the good of the team....just like the Government are amending the WorkChoices, for the betterment of all involved.

I see you feel there are moral issues that are being disregarded - but in the end that is OK - fine your opinion not mine.

BUT - if a company is using its workforce as a mere item on its Profit and Loss Statement then it deserves to be in trouble. Your comments above show that you believe company profits are far more important than company personnel - I suppose you are going to claim without profits there are no personnel - but the same could be said in reverse. Proof is that those companies that I have dealt with in the past that churn and burn their employees always seem to go broke or get bought out as very cheap investments. Whereas those that value their staff - share the company profits through looking after their staff seem to go from strength to strength.

"Moral issues" are different for everyone.
I'm sure Gaspar being forced out today by the Club....some people will say that is so the club can get stronger, and some will say it was poorly handled.
Did Richmond put their future ahead of a valued employee, by churning and burning him? did we value him enough?
Everyone will have different opinions on what is morally right, and what isn't.....but at the end of the day, the Club has a responsibility, just like a company does.

There is no point mate "valuing" your staff so much, that you are putting them above the financial stability of the company....which if goes down...will put the once "valued" employee out on the street.

There has to be a balance between rewarding your employees and being fair to them, as well as being responsible towards the company financial stability and the shareholders who invest their hard-earned into the company.

When you go down to the car-yard and buy a car.....you shop around first, to look for the best deal, right?
If you can get a Commodore at caryard-A for $40,000......and down the road, at caryard-B, you can buy the exact same Commodore for $30,000...why would, and why SHOULD, you be forced to buy the $40,000 one?
Companies should also have the right to look for the best deal when it comes to paying wages to employees....and if the employer/employee can negotiate and price that is reasonable for both, then I don't see what the problem is.
If they can't come to an agreement, and the company decides it is in their best interest to hire someone else on a lower wage, then they should have that right.

Remote,
As you know, I don't back down on issues.....and I simply didn't answer the rest of your post, because I was at work and didn't have time.
But now, I am more than happy to answer the rest of it.

As for the JSF....look, it was between the JSF, the Raptor, and a European alternative....and some will say the JSF is better for our needs, and some will say the Raptor is better for our needs...or the Euro one is better.
For $12b, we might have only been able to purchase half the amount of Raptors, as they are bigger than the JSF?
Maybe by buying the JSF, we get a better deal regarding upgrades, training of pilots, and spare parts/maintenance?
Maybe IF Rudd gets into power, he can clean-up the mess caused by the past ALP government and their little bungle with the Collins class submarine.....something you forget to mention while bagging Howard and his defence choices.

And all this Westminster stuff.....c'mon Remote.....the new IR-policy from the ALP, is totally against the constitution:

But chief executive Peter Hendy today questioned the legality of Fair Work Australia, saying the proposal was on "shaky ground".
"They're going to give this agency tribunal powers, they're going to give it policing powers and they're going to give it court powers, and you can't actually do that under the federal constitution," he said.


http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21624389-421,00.html

Where are your comments on this farce?
You talk about laughing in the face of our forefathers, and then forget to mention this abuse of the Constitution?

 

[RemoteTiger]

At least the Collins class submarine went through cabinet, Department of Defense and Treasury - and all those were able to have their say. This Fighter jet is all Johnny's doing.

ALP policy against the constitution - more Liberal Party media hype - it has to be tested utter *smile* - Rudd has been through it with constitutional solicitors - they say the opposite to the Liberal election *smile*.

You seem to agree with the press when its states indiscrimanent crap that appears to support the conservative way of thinking - I know the ALP philosophy has its poor areas - but so does the Conservatives philosophy.

Now you make sure your house is locked tonight because Johnny keeps telling us those big bad Unions are going to be back in the neighborhood.

Funny how he doesn't mention those entreprenuarial capitalist that will rip you off at every chance they can get.

Aren't you tired of Johnny's scare tactics - or do you like to live in a life full of fear (Terrorists - we are on the map thanks to Johnny, Unions - they will ruin the economy, Illegal queue jumping immigrants - they are different to us so they must be bad)

It is Menzies revisited with the red under the bed scare of the 1950s - oh I forgot Johnny has modelled himself on Pig Iron Bob.

 

[ssstone]

At least the Collins class submarine went through cabinet, Department of Defense and Treasury - and all those were able to have their say. This Fighter jet is all Johnny's doing.

ALP policy against the constitution - more Liberal Party media hype - it has to be tested utter *smile* - Rudd has been through it with constitutional solicitors - they say the opposite to the Liberal election *smile*.

You seem to agree with the press when its states indiscrimanent crap that appears to support the conservative way of thinking - I know the ALP philosophy has its poor areas - but so does the Conservatives philosophy.

Now you make sure your house is locked tonight because Johnny keeps telling us those big bad Unions are going to be back in the neighborhood.

Funny how he doesn't mention those entreprenuarial capitalist that will rip you off at every chance they can get.

Aren't you tired of Johnny's scare tactics - or do you like to live in a life full of fear (Terrorists - we are on the map thanks to Johnny, Unions - they will ruin the economy, Illegal queue jumping immigrants - they are different to us so they must be bad)

It is Menzies revisited with the red under the bed scare of the 1950s - oh I forgot Johnny has modelled himself on Pig Iron Bob.

3 YEARS OF ARGUING and labor still got it thru.. election *smile*?? cut from the same cloth refer no tolls taxy bracksy ...alp has always had its 'POOR POLICYS' shame about the no child promise....yeh damn those big bad capiltists that employ slave labour under forced conditions?? lets all be poor me/need 17%loading?holidayentitilments?turn up allowances,union picnic day lovin socilist live off's ?? let'sFEAR THE A.W.A'S not good guys like saddam or his like.....yeah what a quote 57 years later bob the socialists are still havin a crack :rofl

 

[ssstone]

Well done Bill :clap
You've just alienated a large group of voters.
As for your comments John...... soft!

What an absolute stooge!

what a post from a member who has THE MALE CHAUVINIST as thier av :cutelaugh :cutelaugh

 

[Liverpool]

At least the Collins class submarine went through cabinet, Department of Defense and Treasury - and all those were able to have their say. This Fighter jet is all Johnny's doing.

Ah....so the Collins-class sub goes through the right channels, endorsed by the ALP government of the time, and turns out to be the most expensive lemon in Australian history, and that is o.k....because it went through the right channels.
We don't know how good (or bad) the JSF is yet.....and its already getting bagged because Howard is deemed to have not gone through the right channels.
Have a read of this mate, and tell me which has cost the Australian taxpayer the most, with no return so far....the JSF.....or the Collins-class subs:

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/1999/collins.html

ALP policy against the constitution - more Liberal Party media hype - it has to be tested utter *smile* - Rudd has been through it with constitutional solicitors - they say the opposite to the Liberal election *smile*.

Different here:

Mr Rudd's proposed tribunal, to be called Fair Work Australia, was immediately criticised by legal experts as being potentially invalid under the Constitution.
Lawyers also backed leading employer groups in arguing that a serious conflict of interest lay ahead if the administration and enforcement of Australia's industrial relations system was handled by the same authority.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21629119-601,00.html

You seem to agree with the press when its states indiscrimanent crap that appears to support the conservative way of thinking - I know the ALP philosophy has its poor areas - but so does the Conservatives philosophy.

Really?
Looking forward to reading all about them in your next post....?

Aren't you tired of Johnny's scare tactics - or do you like to live in a life full of fear (Terrorists - we are on the map thanks to Johnny, Unions - they will ruin the economy, Illegal queue jumping immigrants - they are different to us so they must be bad)

We're not on the "terrorist map" because of Johnny......terrorists kill anyone, from anywhere.
Do you think they asked everyone in the Twin Towers, before the flew airliners into it, to see where they came from?
I'm sure they didn't ask the Aussies killed that day.
Do you think they asked everyone in Bali, Madrid, or London..."Where are you from mate, as we're going to kill only people from the countries we hate."?
I'ms ure they didn't ask the Aussies on those days.
Terrorists kill their own people, and don't blink and eye-lid.

Unions have a place in society....but they have to be kept under check as well.
I have no problem my workers joining a union, but on the other hand, I don't want the union trying to boss and manage what I do and how I do it either.
There has to be a balance.....and at the moment, unions are too far leaning towards the employees running the business, and interfering in how businesses are run.

Illegal queue jumpers?
Well...you said it....ILLEGAL queue-jumpers.
They should be sent back to where they came from, as agreed by your beloved new PM:

The federal Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, says Labor Party policy would have asylum seekers processed on Christmas Island or returned to where they came from.
"Labor's policy is that if people are interdicted on the high seas, then these vessels should be turned around," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1855040.htm