Australia'a Industrial Relations Laws

[Atreyu]

Hi all.

There is a current story in Australia’s newspapers about Catholic criticism of Australia’s new Industrial Relations Laws, called “Work Choices”. The critics include Bishop Kevin Manning of Parramatta (near Sydney). The Laws were introduced by the Coalition government, made up of the Australian Liberal Party and the National Party. Despite its name, the (capital L) Liberals are the major conservative party in this country. The main opposition party is the Australian Labor Party, which is centre-left and heavily influenced by the Unions.

The Laws themselves limit significantly the power of the Unions, and in particular they give power to individual employees in being able to negotiate individual contracts with their employers. Now I don’t pretend to be an expert in these (and so my synopsis might not be all that accurate), but it seems pretty clear to me that these laws have helped Australian job growth such that the unemployment levels in this country are lower than they have been in over 20 years. In my state, unemployment is lower than it has ever been. This means that employees are more valuable than they have ever been, and so employers are doing everything they can to keep them.

In this current story (linked above), Bishop Manning and some other non-Catholic clergy are particularly critical of the Health Minister of the Australian Federal Government, a Catholic by the name of Tony Abbott. This is not the first time that high-ranking Catholic clergy have spoken against these laws. As far as I am concerned, Abbott is a shining light in the Australian parliament, and is as faithful a Catholic as you could hope for to represent your country in politics. I would vote for the Liberal party simply because of this one man, who has a slim chance of even leading the party one day and possibly becoming the Prime Minister. Abbott is a constant defender of the Church’s pro-life position - an extremely valuable asset in his current portfolio.

Now what I can’t understand is, why are Christians - and in particular, Catholics - critical of Work Choices? I’m hoping someone who is familiar with these laws can help me understand this! Also, why would the bishops choose to speak out against the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott when they really should be speaking out against the Labor party and its non-pro-life position? I am really curious as to what Cardinal Pell’s opinion would be on all of this.

Are Work Choices really inconsistent with Catholic morals? Or is this just an example of a modernist left-wing bishop (I’m not saying that Bishop Manning is this, I don’t know anything about him) speaking out of place?

 

[LilyM]

I don’t pretend to be an expert on Industrial Relations Law, but here is my humble opinion.

Industrial Relations is all about striking a balance between the rights of workers - who, for example, should be able to earn enough from full-time work to support themselves - and the rights of employers. Certainly in the Catholic dictionary capitalism isn’t a dirty word, so there’s nothing wrong in principle with making a healthy profit from your business, as long as you don’t unduly exploit your workers in so doing.

The problem is that in the dictionaries of some members of the Liberal party the words ‘workers rights’ and ‘unions’ DO actually seem to be four-letter.

Goverments in general tend not to strike the right balance, they’ll always cater too much to businesses and employers or else employees.

For example the ‘unfair dismissal’ laws introduced by Labour. They DID make it difficult for very small businesses to hire people, since they stood to lose everything through being sued by sacked employees.

But for the Liberals to turn around and scrap them for all businesses employing less than a hundred people? 20 or 50 might be understandable, but 100? That’s a heck of a lot of businesses there who should be made to account for their hiring and firing practices who aren’t.

And things like workplace agreements - in practice the bargaining power between employers and employees will always be uneven. Sure there are more people in work now than ever before but there are still loads of people lining up for almost every single advertised job, which of course gives the employer an unfair advantage from the get-go in most cases.

As for Cardinal Pell - heard him speaking at the National Press Club the other day. He was initially against Work Choices but the government beefed up its ‘fairness test’, whereby individual contracts have to meet certain minimum standards, and his opposition evaporated

 

[Chickie]

Hi, Cardinal Pell was actually asked a question about Workchoices in his recent address to the National Press Club (his presentation was actually about World Youth Day). His response was brief, stating that his problem was with the removal of protection for minimum wage earners. He then said that he was pleased that objections were listened to and that the protection was put back.

Other than that I’m not familiar with the Cardinal’s opinions. Google “Cardinal Pell Workchoices” for lots of articles.

Cheers, Elissa

 

[Elric]

Tont Abbotts image has gone through a major overhaul since he took on his new portfolio.

But I will always know him as a thug. I used to be a regular watcher of Parlament Question Time before he was made the Minister for health and used to enjoy his antics when he got up to speak. It seemed that any time the Government want to sledge/bag the Opposition, they would get a back bencher to ask an inane question to old Tony boy and he would twist it around to have a shot at the Opposition. I used to actually call him “the Hitman” as well because he was quite good at stiring up the Opposition.

As far as individual contracts go, there wont really be a change from the previous way of doing things. It would cost large and medium sized companies to much to work out individual contracts with their employees, so they would rather deal with representitives of several employees (like Unions) to work out several contracts at once.

 

[Atreyu]

Tont Abbotts image has gone through a major overhaul since he took on his new portfolio.

But I will always know him as a thug. I used to be a regular watcher of Parlament Question Time before he was made the Minister for health and used to enjoy his antics when he got up to speak. It seemed that any time the Government want to sledge/bag the Opposition, they would get a back bencher to ask an inane question to old Tony boy and he would twist it around to have a shot at the Opposition. I used to actually call him “the Hitman” as well because he was quite good at stiring up the Opposition.

As far as individual contracts go, there wont really be a change from the previous way of doing things. It would cost large and medium sized companies to much to work out individual contracts with their employees, so they would rather deal with representitives of several employees (like Unions) to work out several contracts at once.

So is there anything inherently anti-Catholic or non-Catholic about the Work Choice laws? Should Catholics be campaigning against these laws, or do other issues - in particular, life issues - trump them?

 

[Elric]

So is there anything inherently anti-Catholic or non-Catholic about the Work Choice laws?

None that I can see.

I cant honestly see why that had to be asked.

Should Catholics be campaigning against these laws, or do other issues - in particular, life issues - trump them?

I dont think so, but it depends on what exactly you mean by life issues. The old workplace laws needed fixing and the Government tried to do that.

They seem to be quite a change from what we are used to and I think that is what scares people, change. And all the propoganda ads didnt help the situation, the had quite a lot of misinformation and false information about the new laws. I think that as long as the government are open about the laws and remain willing to fix any problems with them, they should be ok.

 

[latin_rite]

Abbot is a idiot. Australia use to have the of the best health systems in the world till the liberals got in. The original industrial laws were a joke. Luckily people like Cardinal Pell and leaders of other churches spoke up so loudly against it. As far there being anything inherently anti-Catholic or non-Catholic about them, I don’t know. I’m sure there isn’t anything in official church law saying it is. But If being Catholic means trying to do as Jesus asks and give everyone a fair go and to look after those who aren’t in a favourable position as us. Then I guess it is. Over the past 15 years or so both the federal liberal and state labour parties have gone surplus crazy. Some these morons have to the belief that squeezing 9 billion dollar surplus’s out of 20 million people is a good thing. Why isn’t this a good thing? 15 yrs ago we paid a lot less tax and had world class health systems, education, roads etc. Which was the envy of many bigger richer countries. now they are little better than third world and we’re paying a lot more for it. Don’t get me wrong responsible spending is a must, But not to the point of neglect. Put it this way if I was to just bank all of my money and not spend it on my Childs health education safe transport etc. Would I be classed as a good parent? No. A rich one yes but not a good one.
And Elric as far as the so called “propaganda ads” Both sides do that. even the commercial for the work places advisory centre are nothing more than liberal propaganda ads. But never mind Howard and all his right winged cronies will soon be gone and we will have a all labour government both state and federal. Is that a good thing? I don’t know. I’m sure there will be advantages and disadvantages. One good thing though at least we wont have a government that is heavily influenced by both the very rich and u.s style evangelicals.
And no i’m not anti Bush. I think he is o.k A little mislead perhaps but still ok.

 

[Atreyu]

None that I can see.

I cant honestly see why that had to be asked.

Well then why are prominent Catholics speaking out against them? I think I agree with my secular friends here who reckon these Catholics should keep their noses out of politics. I can only see these actions as creating scandal for those that think the laws are a good thing.

I just don’t understand why these Catholics have gone out on a limb here to condemn Abbott in particular, and these laws in general. I reckon Abbott’s response was spot on.

Latin Rite - thanks for your two cents but allow me to disagree with you about Abbott. He is the only faithful Catholic politician that I know of in Australia. I know he’s not perfect, but at least we have one in there. I agree that the health system isn’t what it used to be, but I don’t see why anybody would blame this on the Federal government - as far as I know, health (apart from a few things like Medicare) is run by the States. Perhaps the States are not getting enough funding from the Federal government and there’s an argument to be made from that. At least Abbott would have banned RU486 if the decision had have been his - like it should have been.

 

[Elric]

Well then why are prominent Catholics speaking out against them? I think I agree with my secular friends here who reckon these Catholics should keep their noses out of politics. I can only see these actions as creating scandal for those that think the laws are a good thing.

I just don’t understand why these Catholics have gone out on a limb here to condemn Abbott in particular, and these laws in general. I reckon Abbott’s response was spot on.

Maybe they just wanted something to complain about and make themselves look good. The new workplace laws are not perfect, but perfection in things like this is really impossible. People will always find ways to abuse the system no matter what you do.

I think that Tony Abbott is also a very easy target for critisim, because of his “thug” days, his beliefs, and things from his past that can pop up (like his “son”).

Latin Rite - thanks for your two cents but allow me to disagree with you about Abbott. He is the only faithful Catholic politician that I know of in Australia. I know he’s not perfect, but at least we have one in there. I agree that the health system isn’t what it used to be, but I don’t see why anybody would blame this on the Federal government - as far as I know, health (apart from a few things like Medicare) is run by the States. Perhaps the States are not getting enough funding from the Federal government and there’s an argument to be made from that. At least Abbott would have banned RU486 if the decision had have been his - like it should have been.

I cant speak for the whole health system, but his handleing of the mental health system does leave a lot to be desired (then again that really goes for both sides of politics).

One example is his extreme reluctence to assist depressionet, an online chat site catering to people with depression and other mental illnessess which also provides assistance for getting help with coping with mental illness and frankly saves lives. They provide information on depression, give information on the latest studies, have regional lists (Australia wide) of professionals who can help and have message boards and chat rooms for those with a mental illness (and family members) can communicate with others who are in the same boat or just find someone to “talk” to when they are not going that well.

They needed some government funding so that they could keep the site open (as they are a non-profit group) and Mr Abbott wasnt willing to provide the funds (from memory it was $300,000). It was only after Alan Jones pulled him up about it on air that he grugingly assisted depressionet.

That has always annoyed me, I have repaired computers for this group, believe me they are nowhere near state of the art, and would gladly do so again. For Tony Abbott to deny funding to a group that saves lives is just amazing.

 

[Montalban]

Abbot is a idiot.

He’s Catholic.

I’m against WorkChoices, already the government’s tried to pull a swifty by changing the way their policy is referred, as if a name change changes reality. The government no longer officially calls it WorkChoices

 

[Atreyu]

He’s Catholic.

I’m against WorkChoices, already the government’s tried to pull a swifty by changing the way their policy is referred, as if a name change changes reality. The government no longer officially calls it WorkChoices

As I remember it, they tried to change the name of the laws after the introduction of the Fairness Test, but the name change didn’t stick and so it’s still called Work Choices. Well, everyone I know still calls them that anyway.

But I don’t want to make this a thread about people’s preferred politics. Do you see anything in the laws that a Catholic is morally bound to reject? I think that’s really what I’m asking. Was the bishop correct to criticise the laws and Tony Abbott? Or is he just “againt” it, as you are; and took the opportunity of holding a respected position in the community to campaign against policies that he is “against”?

 

[Montalban]

As I remember it, they tried to change the name of the laws after the introduction of the Fairness Test, but the name change didn’t stick and so it’s still called Work Choices. Well, everyone I know still calls them that anyway.

I checked their site and they still do! (even the site’s called this)

But I don’t want to make this a thread about people’s preferred politics. Do you see anything in the laws that a Catholic is morally bound to reject? I think that’s really what I’m asking. Was the bishop correct to criticise the laws and Tony Abbott? Or is he just “againt” it, as you are; and took the opportunity of holding a respected position in the community to campaign against policies that he is “against”?

Economics I think should be fair and just and the Apostles practiced charity and looking after widows, etc, so I think we should.

On that basis, I think we should vote Labor.

However Labor is fairly ‘progressive’ on some moral issues. I can’t bring myself to vote Liberal as I’ve disliked Howard since he was a benefactor in the coup of 1975

 

[Atreyu]

I checked their site and they still do! (even the site’s called this)

Yeah - I think they just gave up on trying to rename the legislation, after it became clear that such a measure was never going to work.

Economics I think should be fair and just and the Apostles practiced charity and looking after widows, etc, so I think we should.

On that basis, I think we should vote Labor.

Well I don’t think it’s as easy as that. To be fair and just, an economic system needs checks and balances. There is no doubt in my mind that the Unions held way too much power in Australia prior to the economic reforms started by Hawke and Keating and continued by Howard and Costello. The MUA is a typical example of this. If you want to know what I mean by too much power, look up what the Unions did during World War II to undermine the war effort.

I believe government exists to regulate these checks and balances, but also to ensure that as many people as possible work. Whoever can be working, should be working is my motto. If you are unable to get a job for any reason, then it is society’s responsibility in general and the government’s responsibility in particular to look after you. But earning a wage is infinitely better than receiving welfare.

The economic reforms of Howard including Work Choices have directly caused Australia’s unemployment to be at its lowest level in over 20 years. Therefore, so long as these laws are not unjust, I think we should be supportive of them. If Rudd gets in and reverses those laws and we have a corresponding increase in unemployment, then what use to society is that? You’re simply increasing the number of people that need welfare.

However Labor is fairly ‘progressive’ on some moral issues. I can’t bring myself to vote Liberal as I’ve disliked Howard since he was a benefactor in the coup of 1975

So he became Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Was he directly involved in the coup? Was he a protagonist? Not that I know of. I submit to you that your dislike of Howard is irrational. I also propose that whatever your feelings are on Howard and industrial relations, the fact that the Liberal party is a much more conservative party on moral issues should be enough for you to vote Liberal. As far as I am concerned, this is and will always be the main issue when voting at elections.

Click me for an interesting article on religion (in particular, Catholics and other Christians) and Australian politics.

 

[Montalban]

Well I don’t think it’s as easy as that. To be fair and just, an economic system needs checks and balances. There is no doubt in my mind that the Unions held way too much power in Australia prior to the economic reforms started by Hawke and Keating and continued by Howard and Costello. The MUA is a typical example of this. If you want to know what I mean by too much power, look up what the Unions did during World War II to undermine the war effort.

I just quit my union 'cause they’re so hopeless. It’s the first time in my working life that I’ve not been a union-member. Although this is just my personal experience - so I’m not saying that all unions are weak.

I believe government exists to regulate these checks and balances, but also to ensure that as many people as possible work. Whoever can be working, should be working is my motto. If you are unable to get a job for any reason, then it is society’s responsibility in general and the government’s responsibility in particular to look after you. But earning a wage is infinitely better than receiving welfare.

I’ve done both, received welfare, and a wage. I also know that it’s getting more and more difficult for poorer students to do degrees. When I did my BA I went from the dole straight onto AusStudy which was about $248.00 a f/n (in 1996). They offered a ‘Student Loan’ to double this to about $480.00 a f/n. However you had to then pay the whole lot back including the bit you would have got for nothing from AusStudy. This was a really lousy scheme because I were forced to opt for the loan - just in order to live. I’m still paying it off!

The economic reforms of Howard including Work Choices have directly caused Australia’s unemployment to be at its lowest level in over 20 years. Therefore, so long as these laws are not unjust, I think we should be supportive of them. If Rudd gets in and reverses those laws and we have a corresponding increase in unemployment, then what use to society is that? You’re simply increasing the number of people that need welfare.

What type of employment? Casual jobs? You’ve the average Australian working harder and longer. A growing gap between rich and poor. Him holding back money from hospitals and schools so he can claim to have the biggest surplus. His selective funding to schools that favours super-rich schools such as the Kings School (here in Sydney) or Geelong Grammar (in Victoria).

So he became Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs

And then treasurer. He did, as I note, benefit from that sad situation.

. Was he directly involved in the coup? Was he a protagonist? Not that I know of. I submit to you that your dislike of Howard is irrational.

No. It’s just that I have a long memory and Howard has consistantly acted like a (can’t say this here). From his talk to a racist group in the late 80s to his level of lies in the election of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises. He’s not a moral man. He is an excellent politician (which is not a compliment).

I also propose that whatever your feelings are on Howard and industrial relations, the fact that the Liberal party is a much more conservative party on moral issues should be enough for you to vote Liberal. As far as I am concerned, this is and will always be the main issue when voting at elections.

Moral issues that also concern me; such as our involvement in an illegal war, lack of apology to Aborigines, fearmongering over Aborigines and then illegal migrants (recall the lies over Tampa).

Howard is not a moral person. They way he grabbed for a moral high ground over the preamble to the Constitution after more than a decade of being opposed to Aborigines’ rights.

 

[Atreyu]

I just quit my union 'cause they’re so hopeless. It’s the first time in my working life that I’ve not been a union-member. Although this is just my personal experience - so I’m not saying that all unions are weak.

Me neither. Unions are great when they work properly!

I’ve done both, received welfare, and a wage. I also know that it’s getting more and more difficult for poorer students to do degrees. When I did my BA I went from the dole straight onto AusStudy which was about $248.00 a f/n (in 1996). They offered a ‘Student Loan’ to double this to about $480.00 a f/n. However you had to then pay the whole lot back including the bit you would have got for nothing from AusStudy. This was a really lousy scheme because I were forced to opt for the loan - just in order to live. I’m still paying it off!

96? You mean under a Labor government? While your concerns are valid, I think that HECS is an incredibly generous system. Just compare it to the US system for example! But more could be done, I agree.

What type of employment? Casual jobs? You’ve the average Australian working harder and longer.

If this is true, then you’re right to say it isn’t very good. But I’m not sure it is true.

A growing gap between rich and poor.

Again, I am not sure that this is true. Also, a more accurate indicator would be to determine just how many people are really struggling. If the poor are rich, what matter that the rich are a lot richer than them…?

Him holding back money from hospitals and schools so he can claim to have the biggest surplus. His selective funding to schools that favours super-rich schools such as the Kings School (here in Sydney) or Geelong Grammar (in Victoria).

Now this is just not fair. Public schools are funded by the State governments. The fact that the Federal government gives money to private schools actually saves us money, because that means we need to spend less on public schools - due to lower demand. If you do the sums, it works out.

And then treasurer. He did, as I note, benefit from that sad situation.

So did a lot of people. This is really unfair!

No. It’s just that I have a long memory and Howard has consistantly acted like a (can’t say this here). From his talk to a racist group in the late 80s to his level of lies in the election of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises. He’s not a moral man. He is an excellent politician (which is not a compliment).

Which racist group? And I always hear about these non-core promises - can you tell me what these are, because I don’t know what they are!

If you’re looking for a moral man then I hope you’re not looking to Rudd. He’s been involved in more scandal in 9 months than Howard has in 11 years. But how would you know? Whenver someone asks him something, he can’t remember. He can’t remember what happened at a dinner even if he flew to Perth specifically for this particular dinner which was held in his honour. He can’t remember what he saw in a strip club except he recalls with absolute certainty that he didn’t see anything that you wouldn’t see in an Australian bar. And when he was in the Queensland State government, he ruined their already ailing health system.

So while Howard may not be the most moral of men, he is a lot better than the alternative! And, I have never seen Howard complain about the constant tirades that he receives. The man has the thickest skin out of anyone I know.

Moral issues that also concern me; such as our involvement in an illegal war

This is unclear - but note that Rudd himself claimed before we invaded Iraq that there was no doubt they had WMD’s. Again, the alternative is not that great.

lack of apology to Aborigines

He said he expressed “deep and sincere regret” over what happened to the Aborigines. I suppose you think he should say “sorry”, do you? Because that’s what the Aborigines want him to say? Well let me tell you this: sorry implies fault. If the current generation is at fault for what happened, then this opens up legal ramifications. More importantly, the current generation simply isn’it at fault for what happened to the Aborigines. Am I guilty of killing Aborigines because my ancestors may have? Are you? The fact is that reconciliation is at two-way street and Aborigines themselves have to recognise that. I think Noel Pearson does, and I sincerely hope that his views become more mainstream among Aboriginals.

fearmongering over Aborigines

Such as?

and then illegal migrants (recall the lies over Tampa).

I was in the US for the 2001 election and so I missed this whole affair and cannot comment.

 

[Montalban]

96? You mean under a Labor government? While your concerns are valid, I think that HECS is an incredibly generous system. Just compare it to the US system for example! But more could be done, I agree.

I am aware Labor brought it in. I was a decade earlier at uni too, and we had TEAS (Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme) and this was one year before HECS was introduced by Paul Keating. However under the Liberals they’ve cut spending on unis and made them more ‘commercial’ so that they offer now degrees to foreign full-fee paying students and now mark exams easier so they continue on at uni as sources of revenue.

If this is true, then you’re right to say it isn’t very good. But I’m not sure it is true.

melbourneinstitute.com/news/news/media_releases/070719%20-%20mr_workers.htm

Again, I am not sure that this is true. Also, a more accurate indicator would be to determine just how many people are really struggling. If the poor are rich, what matter that the rich are a lot richer than them…?

acoss.org.au/upload/publications/factsheets/338__Poverty%20Factsheet.pdf

Now this is just not fair. Public schools are funded by the State governments. The fact that the Federal government gives money to private schools actually saves us money, because that means we need to spend less on public schools - due to lower demand. If you do the sums, it works out.

That’s not entirely true. States fund schools, but so does the Federal Government. The Federal Government is spending my tax funds selectively on a school in such a way that the richer schools get more money. I in fact went to a private school, which is a lower level private school, insofar as its fees aren’t anywhere near Kings school. The richer schools get more money.
abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/10/1974587.htm?section=justin

So did a lot of people. This is really unfair!

What’s unfair?

And I always hear about these non-core promises - can you tell me what these are, because I don’t know what they are!

The issue of non-core promises is widely known

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non-core+promise
It’s so well known that unless you’re a new arrival to Australia I don’t know how you wouldn’t know. Like asking is Brisbane a city in Australia?

Such as this…

I was in the US for the 2001 election and so I missed this whole affair and cannot comment.

Like you’ve never read about it or discussed it with anyone, so 'cause you weren’t there you can’t comment on it.

:yawn: You certainly ask a lot of questions but somehow know that I’ve got an irrational hate of Howard based on knowledge you seem to pretend you don’t have.
I don’t wish to speculate on your motives for these tactics however I do note you also make a lot of comment without proof. I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Montalban]

For anyone else interested, even the very conservative Catholic, George Cardinal Pell has often spoken out against the Liberal government’s harsh laws

“Cardinal George Pell criticized government policies and draft legislation related to labor, poverty and education.”
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4949

“Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell has weighed in on the debates over the Federal Government’s WorkChoices laws and the ACT’s attempt to recognise civil unions.”
cathnews.com/news/606/91.php

 

[Atreyu]

I am aware Labor brought it in. I was a decade earlier at uni too, and we had TEAS (Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme) and this was one year before HECS was introduced by Paul Keating. However under the Liberals they’ve cut spending on unis and made them more ‘commercial’ so that they offer now degrees to foreign full-fee paying students and now mark exams easier so they continue on at uni as sources of revenue.

Yeah, it’s not the best.

melbourneinstitute.com/news/news/media_releases/070719%20-%20mr_workers.htm

Not the most damning of reports…

acoss.org.au/upload/publications/factsheets/338__Poverty%20Factsheet.pdf

This paper doesn’t indicate how bad off people in poverty in Australia really are. Are they struggling to survive? Can they not eat? This is what I want to know. If the answers to those two questions are “yes”, then something really needs to be done about it. However, with more people in employment that means the government has more money to spend on people that are living in poverty.

That’s not entirely true. States fund schools, but so does the Federal Government. The Federal Government is spending my tax funds selectively on a school in such a way that the richer schools get more money. I in fact went to a private school, which is a lower level private school, insofar as its fees aren’t anywhere near Kings school. The richer schools get more money.
abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/10/1974587.htm?section=justin

From the article:
The state governments have an obligation to support public schooling but sometimes choose to support private schooling.
Why is this? If the public schools are struggling, then it makes no sense to criticise the Federal governments! Why not criticise the State Labor governments? And like I said before, supporting private schools saves money for all levels of government.

What’s unfair?

This is what I was talking about when I said your dislike of John Howard is irrational. It is irrational to dislike somebody who profited from a dirty business when he had no hand in the business. It’s akin to disliking LBJ because he profited from the death of JFK. It just doesn’t make any sense!

The issue of non-core promises is widely known

Right, but the whole “non-core” term is thrown around a lot more than is really deserved. My point was that I’ve forgotten what those non-core promises were (if I ever knew - I didn’t care much about politics when I was 15, nor when I was 20 and in the US). I think most other people have forgotten what those non-core promises were as well; yet they still throw around the term “non-core” like it’s going out of fashion. I think it is a meaningless banner and nothing else.

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non-core+promise
It’s so well known that unless you’re a new arrival to Australia I don’t know how you wouldn’t know. Like asking is Brisbane a city in Australia?

Thank you very much for insulting my intelligence. That’s very charitable of you.

Such as this…

Like you’ve never read about it or discussed it with anyone, so 'cause you weren’t there you can’t comment on it.

:yawn: You certainly ask a lot of questions but somehow know that I’ve got an irrational hate of Howard based on knowledge you seem to pretend you don’t have.
I don’t wish to speculate on your motives for these tactics however I do note you also make a lot of comment without proof. I have nothing further to say to you.

Ouch! What other comments have I made without proof? I am curious - that is, if you will deign to respond to this.

 

[Atreyu]

For anyone else interested, even the very conservative Catholic, George Cardinal Pell has often spoken out against the Liberal government’s harsh laws

“Cardinal George Pell criticized government policies and draft legislation related to labor, poverty and education.”
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4949

“Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell has weighed in on the debates over the Federal Government’s WorkChoices laws and the ACT’s attempt to recognise civil unions.”
cathnews.com/news/606/91.php

Are you not aware of the Cardinal’s recent comments? From this article:
Last Wednesday Pell addressed the National Press Club in Canberra on the topic of World Youth Day, to be celebrated in Sydney in July. Following the talk, he was asked a number of questions, including one on Work Choices. Pell reaffirmed that he’d been critical of the Howard Government’s industrial relations reform agenda but said he was “very pleased” to see that the Coalition had “reinstated the no-disadvantage clause, especially for minimum wage earners”.
(my emphasis).

 

[Atreyu]

I wonder if I can get this thread back on topic…

From The Australian’s letters page (for example):
IS it that Tony Abbott doesn’t actually understand Catholic teaching? He says there is no commandment that says thou shalt not negotiate wages without a union, but he must know that every pope since the great Leo XIII in 1891 has supported the right of, and the need for, employees to work collectively to improve their living standards and working conditions.
What is this correspondent talking about? What if the workers actually have good living standards and working conditions - is it still essential that they work collectively to improve them?