Home > Regular Features > Monday message board

Monday message board

November 7th, 2005

It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. November 7th, 2005 at 07:42 | #1

    Would you like to comment on the Business Council’s TV ads in favour of the new IR regulations (shown during Comic Relief last night, doubtless other things as well) giving a sort of power point presentation demonstrating that Aust would fall from no. 8th in OECD to no. 16th or something like that. I forget what the second number was, but it was a specific number, which I thought rather an unlikely prediction. The projection appeared to be based on an Access Economics study. Massaging the statistics, perhaps?

  2. Homer Paxton
    November 7th, 2005 at 09:00 | #2

    australia plays Uraguay again on Sunday ( our time) and then wednesday to see if we can play in the World Cup, the biggest sporting event in the World by a mile.
    Whilst our team isn’t as good palyer for player compared to four years ago the coach is incomparably much better.
    This will produce a better team and hopefully a place in Germany.
    given the success of the new A- league it would give the FFA much to be proud of!

  3. Paul Norton
    November 7th, 2005 at 09:09 | #3

    The North Korean government is tonsorially and sartorially punishing and straightening its citizens. See:

    http://smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/trouser-wowsers/2005/11/06/1131211949711.html

    and:

    http://www.fiscalstudy.com/2005-global-photo/0201-north-korea-vs-long-hair.php

    Given the North Korean government’s working definition of “unhygienic anti-socialist fool”, I must rank as a flyblown fascist imbecile.

  4. Dogz
    November 7th, 2005 at 10:43 | #4

    Helen – the BCA have a document on their website which gives the justification. Few details of the models Access used, but it all seems pretty uncontroversial – they’re comparing average growth of 2.4% over the next 20 years to 4%. 2.4% is what they claim we’ll get if reforms are stopped, 4% if not. They’re not only pushing IR reform, but also strengthening education, tax reform, and increased immigration.

    It seems pretty apolitical – eg they set the start of Australia’s productivity revolution in 1983.

  5. Dogz
    November 7th, 2005 at 10:47 | #5

    Update – just saw that the Access report is attached as an appendix. Haven’t read it but it looks interesting.

  6. Homer Paxton
    November 7th, 2005 at 11:10 | #6

    interesting to see Treasury has confirmed it hasn’t looked at the IR legislation so I expect that means the government still going on that mickey mouse survey COSBOA did some 10 years ago!

  7. Razor
    November 7th, 2005 at 13:11 | #7

    How pathetic are the French. I thought it was outrageous that the Redfern and Macquarie fields riots were so tamely policed and I don’t even live in NSW. How many days are they going to let them continue to get away with this for?

  8. wilful
    November 7th, 2005 at 13:12 | #8

    That is surely the first time that anyone has with a straight face claimed that the IR reforms would produce an astounding 1.6% pa growth. Surely nobody is taking that claim seriously? Not even Howard has been that bold, and all of the informed commentary I’ve seen and heard talk about the reforms being quite marginal/trivial in promoting growth, particularly compared to the obvious areas where Australia does need to restart reform. Dogz, do you believe that BCA claim on the face of it?

    If the growth claim relates to a larger reform program than just IR, then they’re being duplicitous in their presentation. Close enough to outright lying.

  9. Paul Norton
    November 7th, 2005 at 13:42 | #9

    Just wondering what’s come of my post this morning regarding North Korea’s policies on correct line coiffure and sartorial Stalinism. I know I used the phrase “flyblown fascist imbecile” in the post, but I was using it ironically in reference to myself!

  10. Dogz
    November 7th, 2005 at 13:58 | #10

    Wilful, they’re not only pushing IR reform, but also strengthening education, tax reform, and increased immigration. They don’t claim 1.6% pa from IR reforms alone, and I don’t believe the ads claim that either. They just back the IR reforms as part of the entire package.

  11. Dogz
    November 7th, 2005 at 14:37 | #11

    Wilful, they’re not only pushing IR reform, but also strengthening education, tax reform, and increased immigration. They don’t claim 1.6% pa from IR reforms alone, and I don’t believe the ads claim that either. They just back the IR reforms as part of the entire package.

  12. Ros
    November 7th, 2005 at 15:17 | #12

    Either the French or the French police are a funny lot. With one middle age Frenchman beaten to death and a disabled woman badly burnt because she couldn’t get off a bus fast enough for the arsonists, and now policeman being shot, would expect them to get serious about trying to put a stop to the violence. How about a curfew, as it is certainly not safe to be on the street, (crime of man beaten to death in front of his family).

  13. Roberto
    November 7th, 2005 at 15:51 | #13

    Ros Says: November 7th, 2005 at 3:17 pm said ” French police …. would expect them to get serious about trying to put a stop to the violence. How about a curfew, as it is certainly not safe to be on the street, (crime of man beaten to death in front of his family).”

    Aparrently the riots are all about grievance, and not incidental things such as law and order, individual and community safety, respect for the rule of law and democratic peaceful protest.

    And as articulated in http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17161114%255E601,00.html “…is the Interior Minister destroying the infrastructure of poor communities, by blowing up buses, disrupting trains, attempting to set fire to disabled passengers, terrorising tourists, and firebombing places of work? Is he frightening away tourists from France, such as the Russian tour group who were set upon by hoodlums, and had their tour bus torched? Is he shutting down the main train to Charles de Gaulle airport because conductors have been roughed up by gang members? ”

    At the end of the day, its the battlers, the wider immigrant community that will bear the brunt of this through destruction of their private property, communal amenity, and infrustructure and commerce (businesses etc).

  14. stoptherubbish
    November 7th, 2005 at 15:57 | #14

    Well the BCA would say that wouldn’t they, as a harlot once said to a judge. But enough of that. The BCA is intellectually bankrupt, and has contributed nothing to improving Australia’s managerial culture, its skills base or the state of Australia’s infrastructure despite being best friends with Howard for the last nine years. In fact the greatest restraint on Australia’s economic performance is the state of our infrastrucure, not the existence of awards and unions with some capacity to represent workers. Instead all they want to do is have the power, (should they want to exercise it) to reduce the terms and conditions and democratic rights of employees who happen onto the workplace, and then call on the PAYE taxpayers to top up the below standard wages they feel they are entitled to pay, by transfer payments aka the welfare system. They are the greatest bludging, rent seeking mob of lazy over paid and underperforming shonks this country has seen for a long time.

  15. Dogz
    November 7th, 2005 at 16:54 | #15

    STR, are you having a bad day?

  16. lurch
    November 7th, 2005 at 17:02 | #16

    Stop the Rubbish, are you referring to the bca or the liberal party?

  17. Razor
    November 7th, 2005 at 17:06 | #17

    str – perhaps some evidence might make your rant a little more believable. Otherwise, I suggest a cup of tea and a lie down.

  18. jquiggin
    November 7th, 2005 at 17:50 | #18

    Both the spammers and the spamfilters have been busy today, and I’ve only just got around to the moderation queue. Apologies to all whose posts disappeared into the ether – they should be visible now.

  19. Ian Gould
    November 7th, 2005 at 17:55 | #19

    I dealt at length with industry assocaitions (like the BCA) while working in the public service.

    The worst of them are every bit as bad as the worst of the trade unions.

    There’s nothing like generating a panic over some alleged horrible new government imposition to get those membership renewals flowing in.

    I remember spending several days straight in negotiatiosn with a lawyer employed by an industry association (as part of a much longer process to draft new legislation) and commenting that the negotiatiosn weren’t goign very well.

    Lawyer: “I think they’re going extremely well.”

    Me: “why’s that?”

    Lawyer: “I’m being paid $75 an hour to be here.”

  20. Andrew Reynolds
    November 7th, 2005 at 18:31 | #20

    Ian,
    I take it that was a long time ago or the lawyer was very junior. You would be lucky to get $100 per hour rates for a graduate, never mind a properly qualified lawyer.
    All of these groups (BCA, ACTU etc. etc. etc.) have vested interests, as does everyone posting on this blog. STR was distinctly ott on this, as a quick read of his rant will confirm, but anyone who imagines that any of the parties to this debate are acting purely out of altruism is (IMHO) fooling themselves.
    Some of the parties may not be aware of their interests in the debate, or at least how they are affecting their positions and I am not, in any way, saying that implying that their motives are less than pure.
    .
    Personally, I believe these reforms do not go far enough in liberalising the workplace, but they are a start. The reason I oppose them is because of the use of the corporations power to over-ride the States. I worry that, when Labor are returned to office (as they eventually will be) they will use the same power to re-introduce the very stupidities that are currently being removed.

  21. Colin Green
    November 7th, 2005 at 23:26 | #21

    Homer,

    Re: Socceroos – Disagree that Australia “isn’t as good player for player compared to four years ago”. I actually think we have a better crop of players (no longer rely on Kewell). For instance, went and watched Blackburn (featuring Emerton & Neill) v Charlton on weekend and these two were brilliant. Agree that the coach is far superior.

    So here’s hoping that we finally make the world cup (again)!

  22. Terje Petersen
    November 8th, 2005 at 04:41 | #22

    QUOTE:Personally, I believe these reforms do not go far enough in liberalising the workplace, but they are a start.

    RESPONSE: I’ll second that.

  23. Homer Paxton
    November 8th, 2005 at 07:43 | #23

    Colin,
    person for person I think they were playing better four years ago.
    Except for THAT vital game the defence was fantastic. letting in less than one goal a game agoanst higher rated teams.

    guus has intorduced better tactics etal which makes me confident.
    Uruguay have already kicked an own goal in terms of starting time.

    I confidently predict that FIFA will abandon rules and kioc off at 6am out time instead of 10!!

  24. Roberto
    November 8th, 2005 at 13:14 | #24

    According to this report (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/residents-shocked/2005/11/08/1131212035433.html) the legislative changes were necessary to enable this mornings’ raids and arrests.

    Seems to me that the changes showed that the Police/Authorities behaved responsibly before taking action (by staying within the laws) and then only acting once legislative provisions were black lettered. (Puts to death the idea of a police-state)

  25. Katz
    November 8th, 2005 at 14:09 | #25

    Try breathing into a brown paper bag Roberto. It’s a good cure for hyperventilation.

    “According to this report (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/residents-shocked/2005/11/08/1131212035433.html) the legislative changes were necessary to enable this mornings’ raids and arrests.”

    That article says nothing of the sort. It is simply a story based on a quote from the NSW Commissioner of Police who claims that the raids “foiled a large scale terrorist attack”.

    The rest of the story is based on vox pop interviews of local residents.

    There is absolutely no mention of any anti-terrorist laws.

    For all we know the raid may have been authorised under the Dog Act.

  26. Roberto
    November 8th, 2005 at 14:28 | #26

    Try this one Katz http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17176522%255E601,00.html – (apologies, I posted the wrong link).

    Ps: Can I borrow some of your paper bags Katz.
    PPs: You’re not implying the suspects are Dogs?

  27. Dogz
    November 8th, 2005 at 15:10 | #27

    All those who accused Howard of playing politics with this issue look a little silly now. Don’t expect we’ll be hearing apologies or retractions anytime soon though.

  28. Sean Kellett
    November 8th, 2005 at 15:43 | #28

    After years of politicking and fearmongering, Howard no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt on national security. He has lied one too many times. The default position for any rational person should be to assume dishonesty then hope, *hope*, our security forces do there jobs despite the lousy leadership provided by this government.

    It is laughable that critics of Howard should apologise. Let’s not forget, this is the man who lied about the kids overboard, who lied about WMD and continues to dishonesty answer questions about our role in Iraq. The man has form: his critics, entirely rationally, expected he’d remain true to form.

  29. Dogz
    November 8th, 2005 at 15:44 | #29

    On a lighter note, I saw this on parliament last night and it completely cracked me up- costello is a smug bastard but he can be very funny (the excerpt is cribbed from crikey which was cribbed from hansard):

    Mr SWAN (2.39 pm)—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that he was briefed on modelling undertaken by his department in April and May of this year estimating the impact of workplace relations proposals on employment, wages and productivity? Treasurer, what precisely did this modelling show? If the modelling backs up the $50 million advertising campaign claims of more jobs and higher wages, why has the government chosen to keep it secret?

    Mr COSTELLO—I thank the honourable member for his question. I was rather surprised to read in the Australian on Saturday that the Howard government was concealing especially commissioned advice from the Treasury. It was certainly news to me. When inquiries were made of the Treasury—

    Mr Ripoll—It’s so secret they didn’t even tell you.

    The SPEAKER—The member for Oxley is warned!

    Mr COSTELLO—For once he has said something halfway decent in the House, and he is absolutely right: it was so secret that this report had not even been written. That is how secret it was. Not only was it so secret that it had not even been written; it was so secret that it had been neither written nor released, which I have to say was one of those top-secret things. In fact the Treasury—

    Mr Ripoll interjecting—

    The SPEAKER—The member for Oxley will remove himself under standing order 94(a).

    The member for Oxley then left the chamber.

    Mr COSTELLO—The Treasury put out a press release on Saturday—

    Mr Albanese—Put your hands up, Pete.

    The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Grayndler will also remove himself under standing order 94(a).

    The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.

    Mr COSTELLO—In fact the Treasury put out a press release on Saturday confirming that it had not been commissioned to provide specific advice, nor had it written a report, nor had the report been concealed. So I regret to inform the honourable member for Lilley that the story was wrong. In fact I pay tribute to him for actually getting a false story up on the front page of the Australian. It rather reminded me of a $600 payment that did not exist.

    Mr Swan interjecting—

    The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Swan!

    Mr Wilkie—What? Me?

    The SPEAKER—I’m sorry. The member for Lilley.

    Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, the member for Lilley is a swan—

    A government member—No, he’s a rooster.

    Mr COSTELLO—who metamorphoses into a rooster early in the morning: as the cock crows the swan flies off.

    Mr Swan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Treasurer should remember that when turkeys mate they think of swans.

    The SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer finished his answer?

    Mr COSTELLO—I would be surprised if Mr Smith and Senator Conroy think of the member for Lilley when they mate, Mr Speaker. They would be needing a good deal of pharmaceutical treatment if they did.

  30. Dave Ricardo
    November 8th, 2005 at 15:47 | #30

    “For all we know the raid may have been authorised under the Dog Act.”

    Or, indeed, the Dogz Act.

    What is it alleged that these guys were planning to do?

  31. Dave Ricardo
    November 8th, 2005 at 16:02 | #31

    Hmmm, seems very serious.

    “the man who lied about the kids overboard”

    There were 500 cops involved in two cities. This doesn’t appear to be a political stunt, like kids overboard.

  32. jon
    November 8th, 2005 at 19:12 | #32

    Gosh,Dogz, Costello is such is a funny guy.

    Thanks for that. Abbot and Costello are such are good team.
    Both open minded and irreligious,guys.
    Where is there next gig?

  33. Tony D
    November 9th, 2005 at 09:57 | #33

    PM Lawence:

    If you haven’t already read Pratchett’s latest “THUD!”

    As good if not better work than “Going Postal”

  34. November 9th, 2005 at 11:14 | #34

    There are still wallies around who are OPPOSING the anti-terror laws? Hehe, no worries, Darwinism will remove them from the gene pool.

  35. Katz
    November 9th, 2005 at 11:56 | #35

    SATP, are you being paranoid or are you being facetious?

    Whichever, you have an interesting reading of terrorist targeting policy SATP.

    I take your comment about the impairment of the reproductive capacity of opponents of the terror laws to mean one of two things:

    1. Terrorists will deliberately target only those who opposed counter-terror legislation.

    OR

    2. Something else will happen to opponents of counter-terror legislation that will prevent them from procreating.

    If (1), you credit terrorists with a discrimination that they heven’t exhibited yet in many parts of the world.

    If (2) You can’t mean to imply that the federal government is going to lock them up, can you?

  36. November 9th, 2005 at 12:09 | #36

    WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;
    QUOTE
    To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.
    END QUOTE

    Despite my 5 November 2005 email to Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP about the possible failure to publish in the Gazette the amendment and as such the amendment not being legally enforceable, nothing was done about it.
    We had the raid on 8-11-2005 and now on 9 November 2005 we might finally have the GN 44 Gazette publishing the amendment to make it legally enforceable.

    Oops, a bit too late!

    Seems the raids were conducted based upon the amendment being legally enforceable and yet again, despite my 4 years of complaints about failure to publish legislation on time, it still is not being done properly.

    If those detained walk free from the Courts because the charges do not stick because the amendment was not legally enforceable, who do you think then those so much taking credit for the raids then will have egg on their face?

  37. Andrew Reynolds
    November 9th, 2005 at 15:23 | #37

    SATP,
    I am still waiting to see if those laws have been used. AFAIK the laws under which they have been arrested and charged existed long ago.

  38. November 9th, 2005 at 16:02 | #38

    Katz: I meant anyone who opposes the anti-terror legislation is short the amount of common sense required to survive in the wild.

    People who don’t have at least the amount of sense which god gave to geese tend to not last long enough to breed.

  39. SJ
    November 9th, 2005 at 20:54 | #39

    steve at the pub Says:

    geese

    You misspelled it. It’s “S H E E P”.

  40. SJ
    November 9th, 2005 at 20:54 | #40

    Now open your mouth and say “Baah”.

  41. November 10th, 2005 at 08:15 | #41

    Katz: I meant anyone who opposes the anti-terror legislation is short the amount of common sense required to survive in the wild.

    People who don’t have at least the amount of sense which god gave to geese tend to not last long enough to breed.

    You mean the inventors and custodians of the british justice system, jurists and legal scholars for the last few centuries? Sorry they don’t measure up to your weighty intellect, SATP! I’m sure they’ll all admit now that the presumption of innocence and habeus corpus were just silly ideas.

  42. November 10th, 2005 at 08:16 | #42

    And… Shane Warne has lasted long enough to breed who only knows how many, so that kind of goes against your theory, too.

  43. Ian Gould
    November 10th, 2005 at 18:21 | #43

    A week or two back there was a discussion somewhere here botu the new anti-terror laws.

    At the time I defended them.

    Subseuqnetly I have learned that. contrary to what I assuemd at that time, the laws do indeed reverse the onus of proof for various offences.

    On that basis I withdraw my previous support. (Gosh, I bet that has John quiverign in his boots.)

  44. November 10th, 2005 at 18:41 | #44

    I don’t understand what gives Helen the idea that Shane Warne does not possess an instinct for survival? *confused*

    He is possibly a root-rat, compulsive sms addict, crass specimen of sportsman & a fibber, but nowhere have I seen him act like a terrorist-hugger. Helen, are you feeling ok?

    He is an aggressive & energetic survivor, an inspiring leader, he would outlast most of us.

  45. November 11th, 2005 at 13:11 | #45

    SATP, the criterion was clearly enunciated by you was “(people)..who don’t have at least the amount of sense which god gave to geese.” So, Shane Warne immediately came to mind (although Bill Heffernan or those comperes on Aussie Idol weren’t far behind). He is “an agressive and energetic survivor” certainly, but “an inspiring leader”? Please. He’s the Test team’s idiot child whose next egregious pratfall they all await with bated breath,while trying their best to minimise the fallout. So Shane (as well as Heffers, stupid TV identities and John Laws) all give the lie to your assertion that having less sense than a goose is deleterious to your survival. At least in this society. Unfortunately.

    Fine thanks, and you?

  46. November 11th, 2005 at 14:29 | #46

    Shane Warne is certainly a prat, crass, coarse etc. Idiot child of the cricket team? Yes. However if he wasn’t an inspiring leader, teams he captains/coaches wouldn’t suddenly start winning matches.

    He may not possess your or my idea of social graces Helen, but that does not preclude him from being more of a survivor than we are.

    In this society Shane Warne has considerably more earning capacity with his hands than I do. *incredibly jealous*

    God gave Geese (& probably every animal except sheep) enough sense to not stand around & be killed. Survival has little to do with being likeable, charming, or friendly.

  47. Ian Gould
    November 11th, 2005 at 17:48 | #47
Comments are closed.