Comparing the Parties

Labor seem to be a, get down in the trenches government and develop policy which actually addresses grassroot challenges. The Howard era seemingly rode on the back of not only our mining boom but the fact that Globally the world was financially stable. The coalition's major reform achievements were the GST and workchoices, which was overthrown. I cannot think of anything that was significant enough to mention other than these 2. I would be happy to hear of anything substantial that has had a major bearing on the development of Australia, which the coalition government have achieved. I can't help but to think that the coalition were a do nothing but save money government especially during a time of global and national prosperity without any major initiatives. The visionary party in my mind seems to be the ALP unless somebody can substantiate differently.

If the coalition were in the same predicament during the GFC, I can't help but to think that we would be not only dealing with dilapadated transport systems, hospitals and other infrastructure but would have felt the full effects had they been in government during this time due to their policies regarding the GFC. What would they have done that would have improved on ALP's actions that seemingly saved us from disaster?

The CTS is an example of visionary policy, rather than sit on your hands and do nothing long term.

 

How about the Northen rail link?

AND as for Transport and hospitals, what have they done to make them better? Nothing.

However, The only improvement I could imagine the Coalition doing during the crisis, is reduce the waste of the stimulus package, thus providing more resources for further stimulus. Respectively, the Coalition did expect to spend on infrastructure, BUT what infrastructure?

Labor has put themselves in a tight situation, should the EU problem continue to rock the boat, Labor has limited it's ability to react with the same fervour as they did with the first. I would suggest, this is because they wasted too much with the first package, in haste to roll it out.

 

Yea I agree garry, Lucky we had a Rudd Government in charge during GFC.


But I do believe the Red Head has sold us out to the Euro/Yanks. I'm leaning towards Mr.Abbott next election,seems to have a set of balls.

Comparing our country to Spain,France? Joke.
AA when he had 40+bn surplus,AAA when we were 40bn+ deficit am I the only one who sees this does not make sense?

 

If we'd got Howard/Costello instead of that idiot Rudd we'd have had an ETS a long time ago.

Turnbull would have done just fine during the GFC, he had his own comprehensive stimulus package.

 

We would still be under Work choices too wouldn't we???

We will never know that but wasn't Turnbull plan tax cuts;the more you earn the bigger the tax cut.. What we do know is that Rudd's plan was a great one and worked.

 

Work choices would have undergone a lot of reform. Rudd and Swan did just fine during the GFC, there is no reason to suggest that Turnbull, Howard or Costello would have not done equally as well, they're all very capable.

 

Yes we did what we had to, regardless of what party it was. Some would say that the implementation was poor, and to a point it was, however time was a crucial ally that the Rudd government did not have, nor would the Libs. They would of suffered at the implementation phase as well,IMO. Who knows perhaps the Libs may of procrastinated over the implementation because of their fiscal compulsions, whereas the ALP have always jumped in boots and all, with a fix it as we go mentality. So perhaps we were lucky Rudd had the steering wheel. We will never know.

 

I'll pay that.

50% extra funding for hospitals.......1000's new nurses and around the same for GP's if not more. Road works galore happening throughout nsw and qld, all thanks to the current government.

The thing is garry, is that the howard govenment had ample money and opporunity to address the state of hospitals, roads, schools etc etc, but chose to sit on it. Why drive around in a rusty old car that is blowing smoke and is on its last legs, when you are spruiking off about savings.

The way Abbott spoke about the stimulus you would think his reaction to it would have been austerity measures.

They were essentials that needed to be addressed sooner rather than later, the GFC forced their hand a bit quicker. There was an over exageration regarding the waste anyway, but again the loud roar of the negative nutter wins again.

 

Vigilante hospitals, schools and roads ( other than highways ) are state issues. Rudd wanted health to be federal, and schools are heading that way but, and I could be wrong, this would have had nothing to do with Howard directly, as during most of his tenure Labor controlled most states.

 

Really 50% more funding? According to the http://researchaustralia.org/Publications Trends and Stats/RA TRENDS REPORT_FINAL_19_07.pdf research health funding has been dropped. the facts and figures are held within. and from the government from 2008-09 $54,049.2m to 2011-12 71,770.9m A total increase of 17721.7m which is not a 50% increase and in real terms far less than you think.

figures are from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/concisefactbook-march2011-introduction

fact is, the federal government although proclaiming they have increased all these things for the betterment of health, have failed as much as the states. Time is for better policy, not just adding bandaids to an already major problem.

Well, that is a very good point. This very fact, and that Howard government seemed to only put a half arsed effort into re-election, leads me to believe that Howard knew this was coming and that whatever party was in charge would do very badly out of the outcome.

Fact is, to make Australia competitive on s global market, Austerity measures might be the answer. But that is speculation and I do not think that any union, government or institution would be in favour of that.

However, Abbott was not the leader of the opposition at the time stimulus was flying about, remember.

What? exaggeration of waste? No, there was much mismanagement, that is no exaggeration. The fact that a majority of the stimulus was good, Rudd ignoring ministers of his own party recommendations, and simply just pushing more money toward a great sink hole, is no exaggeration.

 

They certainly are, but all still require federal funding to keep afloat to a large degree. Schools receive a combination of federal and state funding, along with hospitals. States alone could not keep them afloat without such funding. Road works require a top up of federal funding, but the federal government during the howard years were able to support these systems greatly with the amount of funding they sat on but chose not to. Probably because they didn't want to give any ground to those labor governments, because politics was too important. The western rail link was dependendant on federal funding as well. Not sure of who was playing games.

 

Garry, you are throwing me too much reading material here. A snippet would have been appreciated. It was 32.6billion when Abbott was health minister in 2007

I don't know about your area, but there have been huge commitments to health that have never been seen in years. Still a long way to go though.

Yeah possibly, but it should have been sorted prior for the sake of the people they represent.

I won't go against expert opinion on this. I'm certain of one thing and that is, we came out okay IMO.

True True and maybe fortunately!

I totally agree with the fact that Rudd ignored his ministers. That's why they had to give him the ole one, two. Poor old Peter Garrett was made to look like a complete fool and took it on the chin, but it wasn't his decision regarding pink batts, it was Mr Ruddocentric. From all reports without the loud roaring of negativity it wasn't as bad as made out. I'll endeavour to post an article that points this out.

 

I should point out, that I said ' they dropped research' It should have been reduced research.

Indirectly it was good, but a further Billion dollars, to simply insure instillations where correctly done, MORE waste. Peter Garrett, really did suffer as the fall guy, and his credibility will take years to recover.

 

He had an opportunity to hammer the rudd issue home, I don't understand why he didn't take the opportunity during the last leadership challenge to express his real position. ahh well. But again, it is the extent that the opposition goes to, to roar out loud above real facts that gets up my goat.

 

What would it have achieved? Rudd was not an issue, as it turned out. BUT pointing out Labor's short comings would not have been proactive for them.

Well, let us face the truth here. Labor did the same thing with the GST. In fact when you look back, it is spooky the rhetoric of the Labor party to the GST and the coalition now. Screamed from high, some of the exact same things about the GST.

The problem is that through both governments manufacturing in Australia has declined over all. Howard, virtually destroyed the confidence in the rural industry and now both parties ignore them to continue to promote a resource economy that is finite. What will happen when it is no longer a major player in the Australian economy?

 

What more can be done but bring back work choices to lower wage rates....this seems to be the only way to allow manufacturing to survive. I'm sure this won't be a winner. Everyone is caught out with large mortgages and a wage decrease will only make matters worse. What is your resolution?

 

Work choices will not do anything of the sort. But if we continue along the same lines it may not be an issue as re-adjustments will happen at the peoples detriment. This can not continue indefinitely

 

Garry, this is what work choices was about. There would be no collective bargaining but individual contracts, which would have meant wages would have declined or at best stagnated below CPI etc due to the inability to bargain collectively. Employees could be sacked on a whim and other suckers out of desperation could be brought in with agreements paying less!
Work choices is a real option if we want to lower wages and ensure manufacturing stays. What is your resolution?

 

Work choices couldn't underpay someone. That is fair work Australia had the regulated rate of pay and would be adjusted as per normal now, if an employer underpayed that hourly rate Fair Work would litigate on behalf of that employee. Things like super, insurances, and other wage tack ons that we have and still have still had to be paid. You may of been able to negotiate super in as far as employer contribution, but there was still a minimum to be met.

What work choices did take away was collective bargaining, and any chance of pay rises outside of the contract. This obviously spelt the beginning of the end for unions, as they would become redundant. they were performance based contracts and if you were productive you had every oportunity to re negotiate evry year for a higher rate. If you were not productive, too bad for you.

I don't know if they would of worked as they were not in long enough to really see the outcome. I think in some sectors they may of, but boy they were open for the big boys to exploit.

Verdict : hung jury.

 

Oh I am sorry about that. I should have pointed out that work choices will not in, any way, HELP the economy. Bad policy is not something that can help. Unfortunately, some of work choices was good, but the bad definitely was far more detrimental to the work force.

But, in that being said, The one thing work choices did not do, was destroy collective bargaining. An employee could appoint anybody they wished to bargain on their behalf. What it did do for collective bargaining, was insure that anybody who did not want to be part of that bargaining, could negotiate their own employment. This would mean that the Union would have to now earn their fees. For them to simply take money from the employees, for something they may or may not do for them, would be a thing of the past.

Many of the good parts of the policy have been adopted by the Labor party. You stated, that anybody could be sacked at the whim of an employer. this is actually incorrect. companies with more than 200 employees would have the same unfair dismissal policy, that was in place with one difference, if an employee was found not to be unfairly dismissed, according to employment agreements, would be liable for all legal costs. Labor retain much of that policy, except they reduced the company size to 100. A person can bargain their own employment, with any employee under the work contract rules Labor have retained, with several mitigating arrangements, for the remainder of the employment force taken into account.

BUT as a whole the workchoices policy was not conducive for better productivity or reduced labor costs. And the policy would not achieve anything of the sort, in a way to reducing cost of production. Actually under the core of the policy it would most likely increase costs. Hardly helpful in trying to reduce costs of production in Australia.

 

It probably wouldn't have achieved this, but I do recall reference from howard to the effect that labour costs had to come down to ensure australia's competitiveness. This is why the unions went hard on workchoices, it was the ulterior motive. http://www.iww.org.au/node/185

 

Well, that is true, labour costs have gone through the roof over the years and really need to be brought back into line. However, work choices would not have that effect at all. Howard was very wrong with this policy. The fact was, that with much of the policy would have actually increased costs, maybe a little but most likely a lot. I could never understand, with work choices, how Howard ever thought it would reduce costs.

As with any policy there where good things, but this policy was far to heavy with bad parts, it was not workable. I do agree, that Unions need to actually preform for their fees, instead of the junkets they throw their reps, on union funds, They seem just as bad as governments in that area.

 

The Libs tried to put forward that work choices was for a more productive and competitive workforce, when in fact it was primarily designed to break the unions strangle hold on heavy industry, primarily the mining, construction and transportation.

Garry you are right in part in regards to collective bargaining, as an individual could negotiate outside set rates, however collective bargaining is all encompassing in that particular workforce, not individual. Yes an individual could put a proxy forward to negotiate on their behalf, but this did not equate to collective bargaining as the collective is not involved. The essence of work choices was individual agreements not collective agreements, hence the strong stand by Labor and the unions.

I know from dealing with various mine workers they were quite happy to have the individual agreements and some earnt more than $ 20,000 more than they did under the existing arrangement, so when it was dropped a lot of them actually lost money.

whether productivity would of increased is one of those things we will never know as it was never in long enough to ascertain an outcome. What I do know the dismissal laws were easier for small business. I was a consultant for a small business who employed 7 people before workchoices took place and the owners had trouble with a female employee. to keep this short, she was found to be giving heavy discounts to her friends, when the owners were out she would close the shop and have two hour lunch breaks, and she would turn up late for work every Monday morning without fail. They were told by Fair work(not sure they were called that then) they had to issue her with at least three letters of warning, and then seek arbitration. Mind you at a cost to them. This they did over a period of 3 months, before settling on mediation. The girl said she was victimised and found it hard to go to work early Monday mornings. This was not corroborated by the other employees. She believed that the stress of her job when the owners were away allowed her to take extra time for lunch for relaxation. In regards to the discounts she said she thought that was normal practise, another assumption that the other employees refuted. In the end the mediation came to the conclusion that both parties were unable to reconcile and recomended that the owners of the business pay the girl one months wages with immediate dismissal.

This whole saga cost the employers over $ 4,000 to conduct. This women was a bad egg and had previous game and deserved instant dismissal. Under work choices the whole saga could of been circumvented, and if the employee wanted to go further they could as per normal, and if there was just cause for unfair dismissal the employer had to pay costs. Fair all round.

The current system is working alright, and as Garry stated there is still portions of work choices that are being used and in some ways better implemented. This one case would of been dealt with adequately under the current programme.

 

I agree completely with your entire comment. I just wish to point out, That should a workforce wish, Another party could bargain collectively for an entire workforce. However, should only one of those employees wish not to use the same party, they could bargain themselves or with a completely different representative to gain an outcome they where happy with. This in essence would have meant that Unions, should they be chosen, would have to bargain individual employee wishes. This for a Union would have been a very expensive exersise, of course and probably unworkable. workchoices simply took the mandate of collective bargaining off the table.

 

exactly