Howard breaks his silence: Work Choices should've stayed

[ozbiggles]

Broken election promises, core and non core policy
Not telling the whole truth about boat people incidents
Massive travel bills
Taking pay rises while telling others to accept less or none
The last government to do this
Kevin 07
At least when Johnnie was in he paid the bills and didn't just rack it up on the credit card.

[cunningham]

I had some very good friends at uni who were red as they come. I used to enjoy listening to them bleating on about how they hated the Libs for introducing Hecs (not sure if they did) and GST. Last time I checked we had a Labor government and both schemes are still in place.

[Arnold E]

Chimbu

Jeez Chimbu, your making me think here ( not easy after a few pale ale's) but I still have to ask, does the government, and therefore by default, the populace at large (including employers) have any sort of moral obligation? It is easy to say that if you are not happy with your lot, move on! Some people dont have that option. Is there any obligation on society to support these people or do we simply cut them loose? Pass- A -Frozzo would have us do that, but the interesting thing is that these people that, maybe, some would cut loose, are still necessary for the system to operate. So Chimbu, should we support anybody? and if so who? or is it every man for himself? Are you comfortable with the aircraft maintenance, pilot hiring scenario or not?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Arnold I tend to look at most things through the prism of the basic Individual inalienable rights.

Would I like it if all aircraft maintenance/pilot hiring moved offshore? (it isn't possible but lets ignore that for a minute)

No I wouldn't but have anyone's basic rights been trammeled? If I am a well trained, experienced engineer I can go offshore myself and earn more money, probably tax free. The Airline just shot themselves in the foot...which is their right...and I have exercised mine without hindrance.

What is the effect of the car industry being subsidised?

Well you and I are FORCED to provide employment/wages for people in an unsustainable industry. By being so forced you and I, and all tax payers, are being denied out individual human rights.

If those subsidies are not put in place people lose their jobs and may have to move in order to gain employment, may have to retrain/upgrade their qualifications/may have to accept lesser remuneration but their rights have not been infringed upon. Having to do so might mean they could be better off....or not...but their rights have not been infringed...their opportunities have not been hindered...you could argue that by subsidising their employment you are actually hindering them. And that subsidy money is available to benefit those or other people in various ways that society may decide on. They may be offered the opportunity of free training...see free education later.

There is no such thing as someone who CANNOT move to find work...only people who WILL NOT...maybe because they are convinced they have rights that they do not actually have.

I have worked in 4 countries in my chosen career. I have trained and studied and upgraded my skills and got to fly bigger aircraft and get paid more. I have thoughtfully exercised my inalienable individual rights to life, freedom and property to live my life based upon my best rational judgement.

But I don't have a right to the job I currently hold or the level of pay I get.

If tomorrow my employer decides I am out of here then I am out of here (and it has happened to me in the past) but my rights have not been infringed. Same if my employer decides to cut my pay by X% or remove staff travel privileges, as an example. My basic rights are intact - I can leave and take my skills with me - if enough of my workmates do the same by exercising their rights then my employer is in the ****..if not...

Society has chosen to provide a certain minimum level of social security for when people lose their jobs but a (growing) % of society has come to look upon social security as a right and sundry socialist political groups have raised it to the point people actually don't NEED to work anymore. Social security is NOT a right because you and I are FORCED to pay them that money and THAT infringes on our rights.

We must all recognise that within society there are all sorts of people who are possessed of all levels of skill/work ethic/education etc.

A LOT of people are being paid too much money for what they produce..great for them but it means everything they produce costs more and YOU AND I are FORCED to pay that increased amount of money.

Houses, cars, food, clothes, movies, electricity...GOVERNMENT.

Next time you walk into a Govt department (CASA??), shop etc and get served by some sullen, barely literate, lazy employee ask yourself what YOU would pay that person based on your own best rational judgement if YOU owned the business...or would you employ them at all?

If a person only deserves or can command $10/hr then paying them $10/hr might actually motivate them to get off their ar$e and be better/improve themselves via education/increased qualifications..or not.

Paying them $40/hr and/or giving them a gold plated Govt pension only benefits them at everyone else's expense...Good idea...ever wonder why YOU work so hard to fund your life aspirations and a reasonable retirement? Because you're being forced to fund, via taxation, the perceived 'rights' of an enormous number of people that, if you were their employer, you'd sack.

Paying them $10/hr doesn't infringe their basic inalienable rights...paying them $40/hr infringes yours.

MORAL OBLIGATION?

I have a moral obligation to provide my daughter with a good home, good education, clothes, medical care, moral guidance etc. I would argue she has a moral obligation to make best use of those things I provide.

We have a moral obligation to be honest in our day to day lives and respect the individual rights of EVERYONE we deal with every day while insisting ours are also so honored.

There is no such thing as moral obligation to give someone I have never met 'rights' to surf all day funded by the dole, or rights to a job or to an artificial wage. To believe so is foolish.

We, as a society, used to believe in privileges. The difference between a privilege and a 'right' is a 'right' does not have attendant responsibility whereas a privilege does.

I have a an absolute right to freedom of thought/speech. Despite what people think I have absolutely no responsibilities associated with those rights. There is NO RIGHT to not be insulted - if I think your religion sucks then I have a right to say so and you have a right to disagree but you don't have a right to shut me up because that infringes my basic individual right to free speech. I DO NOT have a right to act on my beliefs and seek to harm you or stop you practicing your religion because that infringes YOUR fundamental individual right to life and freedom of thought/speech. If your religion seeks to enslave me to its ideals against my will then you/it have infringed my fundamental rights. Think about the societies that actually allow that to happen - countries where there is no separation of church and state - Saudi Arabia/Iran/Palestine spring to mind.

If society allows me the privilege of free education then I have a responsibility to society to make the best possible use of that privilege. If I am given free health care I have a responsibility to use just what I need and no more. If I think I have a right to these things those responsibilities disappear.

We allow the Govt the privilege of levying taxation to pay for stuff that society deems to be good public policy...in our best interest if you like. A govts ability to Tax its citizens is NOT a right because a right carries no responsibility and a Govt has an absolute responsibility not to over tax or waste tax. Governments of both persuasions ditched this responsibility at least 30 years ago...and we let them.

Think about the superannuation black hole (the govt has a different name for it that escapes me at the moment) that we have been hearing about for a decade or more. They're not talking about your pension they are referring ONLY to public service defined benefit schemes...a scheme the politicians/public servants believe they have 'a right' to. We have just been told that the amounts self funding retirees can sock away at reduced tax rates for their old age has been cut in half - our fundamental individual right to life has been infringed by our Govt so that they may fund their own/public service retirement schemes that we cannot be part of as they were deemed too expensive 30 years ago. Do you think public servants/politicians need to sock away ANY money each month for their retirement? No they don't...you're FORCED to do so for them. You and I will be means tested and have just been told we will be working two extra years before we get fck all.

Do you wonder any longer why the Govt CANNOT provide a decent pension to mr and mrs average...or below average..who slaved their guts out for 40 years, paying too much tax, and just managed to pay off their home and educate 3 kids before age and/or health caught up to them at 65 and they find themselves retired with 40k in the bank and a likelihood of living another 15 years in relative poverty?

Do we have a greater 'moral responsibility' to them or to non productive people who relied on their 'right' to social security for 40 years?

Where is the outrage?

If we all INSISTED on our basic, inalienable, individual rights and RESPECTED those of others society would be a healthier place.

[tinpis]

Coalition closes poll gap - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Turnbull be nuts to go for a double diss . Wait, let this mob compost down a bit.

[peuce]

Chuckles .....

[Buster Hyman]

I can't stand it when former PM's think we need to hear their opinions. This is one that crosses political boundaries for me. They've had their time in the sun & we're paying them a huge pension to STF up!

(PS. Nice work CC!)

[ferris]

No man is an island, Chuck...

I'm not going into a big reply, except to highlight a point you touched upon; living in a society confers privileges, and requires concessions in return. e.g. taxation, agreeing to abide by laws etc. The disputes arise over the interplay and quantities within those myriad rules, concessions, rights etc. As you point out, people have choice. If you think your rights are being infringed by an increased taxation burden to pay for unemployment benefits to lazy people who will not move to get work, you are free to move somewhere else. Is that irony not lost on you?

Sometimes, paying people more than a subsistence can be in your interest, Chuck, lest a majority of people decide to shift some of the parameters of the society, and you find more than your ability to speak your mind is 'trammeled'. If you get my drift.

Australia has a remarkable ability to oust the government if the pendulum shifts too far one way or the other. I hope that continues.

[blackhander]

For those who still believe the coalition are such great economic managers try this article from the noted left wing paper The Australian





Meganomics Blog | The Australian

[bulstrode]

Howard and Dixon

Dixon and Howard have a lot in common.Sense of entitlement.Belief in their divine right to rule.Vertically challenged.Manipulative.In short Machiavellian.
Every morning I get up go the bathroom and send a little Johnny to the coast.Great way to start the day.
Howard is yesterdays toast.Old and cold.He lost the election and his own seat.Only the second Prime Ministerto do so.A fitting end for the little runt.

[D.Lamination]

Chimbu (post 56) and Ferris (post 59), agree with some points both of you have made but I must say I lean 70% towards Chimbu - well said.

I believe in a strong civil society but we have gone too far along the road of taxing productive workers and business to death and drowning them in red tape whilst the pile of "dead wood" we have to support grows ever larger (I'm talking about you and your Govt. KRudd + most state Govts.).

[Chimbu chuckles]

No man is an island, Chuck...

I'm not going into a big reply, except to highlight a point you touched upon; living in a society confers privileges, and requires concessions in return. e.g. taxation, agreeing to abide by laws etc. The disputes arise over the interplay and quantities within those myriad rules, concessions, rights etc. As you point out, people have choice. If you think your rights are being infringed by an increased taxation burden to pay for unemployment benefits to lazy people who will not move to get work, you are free to move somewhere else. Is that irony not lost on you? Not lost on me at all...I have been a non resident of Australia for over 22 years

Sometimes, paying people more than a subsistence can be in your interest, Chuck, lest a majority of people decide to shift some of the parameters of the society, and you find more than your ability to speak your mind is 'trammeled'. If you get my drift. I think i do but contemplate the moral hazard society faces when when a large % of the population are paid MORE than they earn and subsequently become convinced this is their 'right'.

Australia has a remarkable ability to oust the government if the pendulum shifts too far one way or the other. I hope that continues.

Me too ferris...but what happens to the political process and ultimately civil society when the majority of people are voting to maintain perceived rights that are actually privileges that carry responsibilities? If I am convinced that I have all these spurious 'rights' then I will vote for the person who protects those spurious rights with no sense of responsibility to the society that I expect to provide them. That is the moral hazard I speak of above...and Australia is very far down that hazardous path.

If everything is viewed through a prism of the few basic, inalienable, individual rights it gives great moral clarity. It repairs that sense of absolute moral right and wrong that the Left denies exists and the right claims is only conferred through religious mandate.

When society has a clear understanding of right and wrong it solves a great many of the problems we face today. It puts responsible political power back where it belongs...with the people.

As just one example of a 'problem' that would be fixed by people insisting on their moral, basic, inalienable, individual rights and demanding that those same rights apply self evidently to all people, take 'illegal' immigration/boat people.

If I believe that ALL people have a basic right to Life, freedom of thought/words/movement/actions and Property then I must accept that people born in places that forcefully deny those rights have the RIGHT to leave and go somewhere where they CAN lead their lives using their own best judgement based on rationally looking at the world around them and deciding how they will use those rights to make them 'happy'.

Instead of society spending billions on stopping people, on risking their lives (something no govt or individual has the moral right to do) we instead welcome them and use those billions more productively.

But people will say "look at all the problems uncontrolled immigration causes...look at the gangs in western sydney...they will destroy our standard of living because they work for less $ etc"

No, these problems arise because the left has convinced immigrants (or more accurately their children) that they have rights they do not actually have.

For starters we have no 'right' to a minimum wage so if an immigrant is offered employment by an employer and accepts that employment NO-ONES rights have been infringed...by seeking to forcefully stop them we, as a society, are infringing their rights.

If instead we sat new immigrants (and every Australian born child) down in a room and outlined EXACTLY what rights they have and DO NOT have and the ABSOLUTE requirement to defend and respect those same rights in ALL other people and the results of them NOT so doing, as deemed appropriate by our democratic society, then few problems would exist...and Australia would benefit.

[mostlytossas]

Chimbu,you have to be one of the biggest right wing loony fool I have ever heard of with comments like that. So there should not be a minimum wage huh? I therefore assume you are quite comfortable with immigrants being brought into this country from wherever radical right wingers like you can source them from and undercut Aussie wages until we are either unemployed or join them in the race to the bottom. So long as it's not you or your family ofcourse. I bet you hate the idea of pensions too huh? Hell everyone should provide for themselves shouldn't they? Afterall we are all free to do so. Ofcourse with good fortune and health people like you are right,but this is where your ideology falls down. It has no compassion for the sick, handicapped, retarded,etc. Let them beg huh? Works well in places like India where no doubt you would source your workers.

[Chimbu chuckles]

You need to read and comprehend what I have written again.

Where did I say I don't believe in social security per se?

I think you will find in post 53, from memory, that I rail against the inability of govt to provide a living retirement pension to people who need it because they waste so much of your taxes on people who don't need it. Legitimately unable to work? No problem we as a society will help you in meaningful way...well we would if we were not WASTING resources on the bone idle. I would dearly love to see the old age/disability pension doubled or trippled but because we waste so much of our limited capital resources on spurious rights we are stopped from being as compassionate a society as we could otherwise be.

Should the pension be means tested. Do I think the dole should have an expiry date for the healthy? Absolutely.

But the fundamental, inescapable fact is that the basic definition of a 'right' is that it CANNOT infringe on another right.

Society can aspire to a minimum wage if it so chooses and Australia has done so...Great!!!

But it isn't a right.

My Daughter has in the last two years or so left home and gone off to college, gained qualifications and in the last 11 months entered the work force...initially part time while still at college in the place she now works full time...they were determined to get her full time within weeks of her starting there...she had to keep asserting herself by knocking back extra shifts because they interfered with college..she even asserts her right to time off because she KNOWS that not doing so will mean she can't function to her employers best advantage...they respect her for doing so.

She was told by many of her mates she could not possibly get a job at this place because she had no relevant experience (as a barmaid) so she should get a job at some lowly pub first...she went to the interview and told them what she COULD do, what she had done and the boss just said "when can you start?"

She is possessed of a great work ethic, self discipline in most things (except bloody boys) and within mere months of starting work has been picked out of the crowd of work peers for promotion and grooming for management positions. Her pay has gone up. She chooses to remain full time casual because she gets paid for every minute she works and recognises that in return she does not get sick/holiday pay. Her employer values her and has said so...asked her what her aspirations are and is facilitating those aspirations in a reasonable and timely manner...putting extra training resources into her (significant free education - she has received free what many parents pay several $1000 for) while still paying her a wage...she feels a very real sense of responsibility to her employer that she notes is lacking in most of the kids that work in the same establishment who instead display a sense of entitlement to their wage while doing just the minimum amount of work and nothing more. She is happy and feels she has found an employer that allows her to use her best judgement (to even make the odd mistake- rare because she has a good head on her shoulders and asks questions - and never twice) and she wants to stay with that employer and work her way to the top.

She has moved from barmaid to events supervisor in a very large business in 6 months...she is 20. She has proved, and continues to prove, her worth and potential and stated clearly her aspirations and the owner of said business has responded with the statement "Chelsea I need you to help control these other dickheads...this is a multi million dollar business that I cannot put a 20 year old in charge of..but one day you will be in charge of it." and she has examples of other staff who have been there 15-20 years (the business has been there 30+ years and always owned by the same fella) and earn a VERY good wage and have been treated extremely well (maternity leave with their job waiting when they are READY to return- as one example a women had 2 years off ( I assume not all paid) and her job was there when she came back) by the owner of the business...because he recognises good employees and is desperate to keep them out of enlightened self interest.

If the boss was a moron she would exercise her basic rights to go somewhere else and his business would suffer as a result.

But she knows she has no right to any of this...she has to earn it and continue to earn it....she didn't get that way by pure fluke. If giving my child the ability to be happy makes me one of the biggest right wing loony fools I have ever heard then so be it...mea culpa

And I will give you an example of the sort of thing she DID that got her where she is now. When she was 17 she had basically finished school here in Asia (English system) and didn't want to do yr 12 and 13 as there was no requirement for her chosen profession in hospitality/event management. My position was you're either in school or working...no middle ground. Where can I get a job I am an expat kid? Ask xyz (Australian female GM) at blah blah hotel (6 star) who has talked to you at school. She rang and told this women the situation and was told to expect a call from HR. She went for the 'interview' and had a plan laid out in front of her to work as an intern in each department of the hotel for one month each, starting in events...pay was Sin$200/MTH. She smiled sweatly, returned home and said "Dad they are taking the piss...$200/mth!!!"

What qualifications do you have that would justify a certain wage?

None.

So?

OK.

She went to work and so impressed the event manager that she refused to release her from the department and just a few months later she organised and ran the British High Commission Christmas Party and earned high praise from the high commissioner and many others...and worked 50+ hrs a week for $200/mth. And was happy and learned heaps and looks back on those achievements with justified pride.

[BrissySparkyCoit]

Geez, some of the arguments here are akin to Geoff Dixon blaming the 1hr late departure of a flight today on Alan Joyce's decision to scrap the segmentation of engineering.

There was no global economic crisis when Howard was here. There is now. It is very easy to blame the current government for a whole host of things. How can we know for certain that things would be better under a Liberal government?

In my opinon, the Liberals threw the last election because they knew what was around the corner. Easier to govern when times are good than when they are tough.

How did Keating put it? Costello spent 10 years in the hammock. That's not an insult, it's merely the situation he found himself in at the time.

[ampclamp]

How did Keating put it? Costello spent 10 years in the hammock

love it.

Costello did have a pretty cruisy ride.Money flowing from the gst fountain and mining taxes and royalties to burn. He did make super much less complex to his credit, far too generous for the big end of town but what the heck all things must pass. I could have looked like an economic genius under those conditions.
Staying a back-bencher now is to his benefit.His halo still intact.

Fact is I don't think either side really saw what was coming.

For mr howard to claim "work choices" was responsible for the low unemployment is a gross exaggeration.
I do think the libs will look back on his era as a huge missed opportunity to govern for 2 decades minimum. Handover of power and subtle policy changes for a new generation cost them dearly imho.

by the way, "fasces" was a bundle of sticks or rods, largely ceremonial, carried by the lictors before the consuls of the roman senate symbolising their position and power.

[parabellum]

The Liberals lost the last election because the left leaning press 'demonised' Howard.

Howard couldn't stand aside for Costello because he knew that Costello didn't have the balls for the job. So did the left leaning press, which is why they so wanted Costello to get the job, that would have given them several miles of copy on the subject of Howard's judgement and Costello's failure.

[ozbiggles]

I think he had demonstrated that with his behavior before and since the election. He is very happy to damage his own party waiting for HIS time to come rather then just get on with it. i.e doesn't have the balls!
IMHO the Libs lost their way when people like Costello, B.Joyce and a few others spent more time backstabbing Howard then coming up with new policy. The media smelt blood (or extra advertising sales) and started and stayed on that angle.
As they say, disunity is death in politics and people like those two and their circles have the blood on their hands.
But as also has been said....it may have been a good election to lose!!

[blow.n.gasket]

Some of you guys must have missed the basis of Industrial legislation in this Country that was in place for well over 100 years prior to Little johnny and WorkChoices.
Have a read of what Henry Bourne Higgins who was the second President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration wrote many moons ago.
He described the unregulated industrial relations environment of the 19th Century as the " rude and barbarous process of strike and lockout" which were replaced by a "new province for law and order", namely the system of compulsory conciliation and arbitration.
One only has to read the "Harvester Case" which was the precident for the basis of fair and reasonable rumuneration " the normal needs of an average employee ,regarded as a human being in a civilised community. In other words the Aussie concept of a fair days pay for a fair days work which led ultimately to the formation of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
WorkChoices was the culmination and essence of greed distilled from the
fervent minds of people such as Dixon and "big business" in general. One only has to read anything from the HR Nicholls society to get a glimpse of the Liberal Party and big business mindset under Howard.
Howard and big business wanted WorkChoices for the simple reason of "supply and demand". As the numbers of people in western society ages so to will the number of eligible workers decline. A bit of a conundrum for the hard line capitalists. That was the whole point of WorkChoices ,to nutralise the ability of workers to collectively bargain their position thereby nullifying any negotiating advantage going into the future.
Smacks of a return to the unregulated industrial relations environment of the 19th century that HB Higgins wrote about. That would have been the so called progress we would have gotten under Howard.

[blow.n.gasket]

What are you on about PAF?
That was the whole point of WorkChoices, to stop workers wages rising when supply of labour drops, duh! That's why big business wanted to nutralise the ability of those workers to collectively bargain.
What do you want? Sweat shops and kids in coal mines?