Australia'a Industrial Relations Laws

[Montalban]

For those here who don’t or haven’t gone to any of another person’s link, here’s the important bit this person left-out

Ears to the pulpit, when it suits
Gerard Henderson

Believe it or not, it now appears that Christian leaders in Australia can enter the political debate without being lectured concerning that which belongs to God and that which belongs to Caesar. Provided they choose a fashionable topic, of course. As in criticising the Howard Government’s Work Choices legislation.
smh.com.au/news/opinion/ears-to-the-pulpit-when-it-suits/2007/10/15/1192300680768.html

Which is what he’s doing too! The Catholic Church has consistantly been a critic of the Liberal Party’s policies towards the underprivelleged, the working-poor, etc. The RCC has been told to butt out of politics. However when along comes a few positive comments, these people and their apologists here are more than happy to listen to the church.

This has worked both ways, the left are happy with his criticism of the IR laws, but not when he talks about stem-cell research etc. However this is on topic… Australia’s Industrial Relations Laws are unfair. The RCC (amongst others) has been consistant in its criticism of this.

This topic is not about his comments on moral issues. It’s about IR Laws being unfair as evidenced by such criticism.

I applaud this criticism made by Cardinal Pell

Many churches have said the same things
Catholic church slams Howard Government plans for our workplaces
lhmu.org.au/lhmu/news/2005/1126216815_17495.html

Anglican church leader backs Your Rights at Work campaign
lhmu.org.au/lhmu/news/2005/1121018418_28265.html

Hallelujah! Archbishops strongly back union worker power
lhmu.org.au/lhmu/news/2005/1123297833_6986.html

Cardinal Pell cautions PM on workplace rights
lhmu.org.au/lhmu/news/2005/1120305374_5963.html

Churches express concern over Federal Government workplace reforms
lhmu.org.au/lhmu/news/2005/1119917859_17895.html

 

[Atreyu]

“this person” hey? Well, at least you grant me that much…

The point of my last post was to demonstrate that the recent changes to Work Choices by the Liberal party (ie the so-called “fairness test”) were met with approval by Cardinal Pell. As to whether or not all of Cardinal Pell’s concerns on Work Choices have been met, I cannot tell.

Now maybe you can tell “this person”, exactly what it is about Work Choices that goes against Catholic teaching? That after all, is the entire purpose of this thread…

 

[Montalban]

I haven’t seen many Australian Catholics on these threads applaud George Cardinal Pell over WorkChoices.

I’ve seen another poster feign no knowledge of the issues, but is quite sure I’m wrong about almost everything… and this person must surely think that Catholics concerned about WorkChoices only have secular reasons for commenting!

There was a Latin American cleric who said “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask “Why are they poor?” they call me a communist”.
-Dom Helder Camara

“The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of freedom and a force for liberation. In recent years, this essential truth has become the object of reflection for theologians, with a new kind of attention which is itself full of promise.”
newadvent.org/library/docs_df84lt.htm

 

[Atreyu]

I’ve seen another poster

Referring to me as “another poster” is really quite juvenile.

feign no knowledge of the issues, but is quite sure I’m wrong about almost everything…

Where my knowledge is lacking I have admitted as much. I have feigned nothing. I have agreed with you on many things. Your allegations in this sentence above are false.

and this person must surely think that Catholics concerned about WorkChoices only have secular reasons for commenting!

Well what are the theological reasons for being concerned over Work Choices?! PLEASE TELL ME! That is the whole point of this thread!

 

[Montalban]

Although I’ve cited Catholic teaching on justice and pointed out Cardinal Pell’s comments that IR laws are unjust there’s someone who keeps wanting to know what the connetion is.

I’ve quite *liberally *(pardon the pun) referenced his words on it.

I don’t refer to him by name because he doesn’t address the facts I present. Yet I’m called juvenille! Must be a PhD thing!

That a person feigns no knowledge of critical events in Australia’s recent political history but knows that I am wrong is quite remarkable. Further that person can cite a text about the selectiveness of praising/condemning clerics, and miss the irony of doing so.

I’m happy to provide even more evidence for you, the reader…

“Time together is every family’s right. The Vatican has called on the international community to ensure working parents, both men and women, are ‘assisted, if necessary by law, to bring their own unique and irreplaceable contribution to the upbringing of their children, to the evident benefit of the whole society … [that] families receive adequate and fair wages that are sufficient to meet ordinary family needs’.8 Recently the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, warned of labour market changes depriving young people of their ‘ability to not only dream and build up a project for the future, but even to commit themselves to matrimony and start a family.”
Most Rev Christopher Saunders
Bishop of Broome
Chairman, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council”
socialjustice.catholic.org.au/Pastoral-Lettershtml.htm

WorkChoices is not just about a ‘fairness test’ but the fact it’s undermined living conditions for Australian families.

Unfair dismissal aspects of the legislation also affects families, and is of concern to Catholics
See Workplace Relations: A Catholic Perspective
ACCER, June 2007
adelaide.catholic.org.au/sites/JusticeandPeaceCommission/media/files/1346.pdf

 

[Atreyu]

Although I’ve cited Catholic teaching on justice and pointed out Cardinal Pell’s comments that IR laws are unjust there’s someone who keeps wanting to know what the connetion is.

That “someone” is the person who started this thread - the very person who wanted to inquire into the Catholic criticism of Work Choices in the first place. I really doubt that anyone else is reading this thread at the moment, so I just don’t understand your theatrics.

I’ve quite *liberally *(pardon the pun) referenced his words on it.

And I also referenced (as did many others) where Cardinal Pell more recently mitigated these comments of his, because of the introduction of the “Fairness Test”.

As far as I am concerned, as Catholics (and Orthodox), we should support the conservative parties due to their (much) better stance on life issues. Therefore, if the Work Choices legislation is contradictory to Catholic social teachings, this would need to be substantial before I considered taking my vote away from the conservatives. However, given that the life issues are not black and white, it is certainly possible that this could be the case.

I don’t refer to him by name because he doesn’t address the facts I present.

The only facts you have presented that I didn’t address were on issues that I am too ignorant to comment. If this sentence of mine is true, then you won’t refer to me by name because of my ignorance. Is that charitable? Additionally, these facts you presented were completely off-topic in the first place, so why would I need to address them? What relevance is the Tampa episode to Work Choices?

Yet I’m called juvenille! Must be a PhD thing!

It is juvenile because it is akin to the “silent treatment”.

That a person feigns no knowledge of critical events in Australia’s recent political history but knows that I am wrong is quite remarkable.

Did I say you were wrong about these critical events? As far as I can remember, I said you were wrong to dislike John Howard for two reasons:

1. 
   *]You blame him for benefiting from the Whitlam saga even though he wasn’t a protagonist.
   *]You blame him for issues where the States have failed.
   
   The only other time I remember saying you were wrong is in your accusations levelled at me. I certainly never said you were wrong on issues that I know nothing about! I also resent the very implication.
   

   Further that person can cite a text about the selectiveness of praising/condemning clerics, and miss the irony of doing so.

   Did I selectively praise anyone - including Cardinal Pell? As far as I can tell - from that very article - he is happy with how Work Choices are at the moment. Does this constitute selective praise? Can you show me that he is still critical of Work Choices?
   

   I’m happy to provide even more evidence for you, the reader…

   You mean me…
   

   “Time together is every family’s right. The Vatican has called on the international community to ensure working parents, both men and women, are ‘assisted, if necessary by law, to bring their own unique and irreplaceable contribution to the upbringing of their children, to the evident benefit of the whole society … [that] families receive adequate and fair wages that are sufficient to meet ordinary family needs’.8 Recently the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, warned of labour market changes depriving young people of their ‘ability to not only dream and build up a project for the future, but even to commit themselves to matrimony and start a family.”
   Most Rev Christopher Saunders
   Bishop of Broome
   Chairman, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council”
   socialjustice.catholic.org.au/Pastoral-Lettershtml.htm

   That’s quite a document to go through. How does Work Choices deprive young people of their ability to not only dream and build up a project for the future, but even to commit themselves to matrimony and start a family? I think I’m missing the causal link here. If you can demonstrate this, then we might actually get somewhere.
   

   WorkChoices is not just about a ‘fairness test’ but the fact it’s undermined living conditions for Australian families.

   How has it done this?
   

   Unfair dismissal aspects of the legislation also affects families, and is of concern to Catholics
   See Workplace Relations: A Catholic Perspective
   ACCER, June 2007
   adelaide.catholic.org.au/sites/JusticeandPeaceCommission/media/files/1346.pdf

   You’re possibly right here, but I would like to refer you to LilyM’s post above (#2). Maybe I should write to Tony Abbott and request the new dismissal laws be restricted to companies with 50 employees or less?

 

[Montalban]

I note someone here simply wants to concentrate on the “Fairness Test” which is, as I pointed out before that person’s comments, not the only problem Catholics have with WorkChoices. The only person to respond to these posts, doesn’t deal with them. That person thinks that replies that don’t address evidence presented, calls for evidence already presented, etc are not ‘juvenile’.

e.g…#1 Evasion by feigning ignorance of an issue
The same person who though sure I am wrong about a number of things admits he’s unable to discuss a key election event by virtue of the fact that he was in another country at that time - obviously it’s only true, if experienced personally. It was, by the way, dear reader, a point where the Liberal Government wished to demonise “Illegal Immigrants” by claiming that they were so devoid of ‘our’ values that they were willing to throw their children over their boats.

As far back as 1988[1] Howard spoke out against Asian immigration. His racist policies in government simply continue his long-held beliefs.

e.g…#2 Evasion by not addressing what’s evidenced, but another point not yet discussed
Even when I present evidence about how the IR laws deprive people of real family time, he lays down a different challenge about family dreams for the future. This is done, I can only speculate, because it’s easier than addressing the point I actually evidenced.

Maybe there’s a PhD in such debate style but it doesn’t add to the discussion.

This ‘dry’ Catholic approach doesn’t sit well with many comments by Cardinal Pell (despite him finding an improvement in one small part).

Oddly enough though that person’s not able to comment on the Tampa Event, for having been absent from the nation, is able to comment on Howard in the Dismissal, which took place before his birth. Such selective reasoning also doesn’t add to the discussion… John Howard became a minister in the coup government. Then he advanced to being Tresurer, a much more senior position.

He’s intereferred in the way the Federation works - happily choosing to under-fund hospitals, but then suddenly directly fund one in Tasmania in a key electorate.

[1] His comment in August that year was: “I wouldn’t like to see it (the rate of Asian immigration) greater. I’m not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is – in the eyes of some in the community – that it’s too great, it would be in our immediate-term interest and supporting of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so the capacity of the community to absorb it was greater.”
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18204301-601,00.html

 

[Atreyu]

I note someone here simply wants to concentrate on the “Fairness Test” which is, as I pointed out before that person’s comments, not the only problem Catholics have with WorkChoices. The only person to respond to these posts, doesn’t deal with them. That person thinks that replies that don’t address evidence presented, calls for evidence already presented, etc are not ‘juvenile’.

I really don’t understand why you’re keeping up with this “other person” business, considering it really is only you and me here…

e.g…#1 Evasion by feigning ignorance of an issue
The same person who though sure I am wrong about a number of things

Well are you? In my last post I addressed certain things I thought you were wrong about, and you have not addressed this. Are you not wrong here? If not, why not?

admits he’s unable to discuss a key election event by virtue of the fact that he was in another country at that time - obviously it’s only true, if experienced personally. It was, by the way, dear reader,

The term “dear reader” is much nicer than “other person”. I much prefer for you to address me thus, thank you.

By the way I never said you were wrong about the Tampa episode, only that I could not comment. Why would I wish to comment on something that I am completely ignorant of?

Are the subsequent changes - the so-called “Pacific Solution” - to Australia’s immigration policy immoral, or was the Tampa episode a once-off incident?

a point where the Liberal Government wished to demonise “Illegal Immigrants” by claiming that they were so devoid of ‘our’ values that they were willing to throw their children over their boats.

Didn’t Labor back up the Government in this episode? I mean, I don’t know - I’m asking.

As far back as 1988[1] Howard spoke out against Asian immigration. His racist policies in government simply continue his long-held beliefs.

One can comment on immigration without being racist. I do not believe Howard is a racist. And if your footnote is the best evidence to go by, then I will add this to the list of irrational reasons to dislike Howard.

e.g…#2 Evasion by not addressing what’s evidenced, but another point not yet discussed
Even when I present evidence about how the IR laws deprive people of real family time,

How do they do this? Please tell me.

he lays down a different challenge about family dreams for the future. This is done, I can only speculate, because it’s easier than addressing the point I actually evidenced.

What point? What is the causal link between Work Choices and people being deprived of family time? If there is a link (which I am definitely open to the possibility of, if you can believe it), then is this enough of a reason to vote in a thoroughly pro-choice party?

Maybe there’s a PhD in such debate style but it doesn’t add to the discussion.

Please stay away from ad hominem arguments.

This ‘dry’ Catholic approach doesn’t sit well with many comments by Cardinal Pell (despite him finding an improvement in one small part).

So are you saying then that not all of Cardinal Pell’s concerns have been addressed? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Oddly enough though that person’s not able to comment on the Tampa Event, for having been absent from the nation, is able to comment on Howard in the Dismissal, which took place before his birth.

My comment is easily verified, is it not? My source was Wikipedia. Please give me a lecture on how terrible that source is, but when you’re finished please tell me how my comments were wrong (if they were)?

Continued…

 

[Montalban]

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

That was only one of the concerns of Catholics on this. The other was how it erroded families by cutting into the time a worker could spend with his/her family.

 

[Montalban]

Dear reader I note some comments here completely miss the mark (again). My objection here was not about anything more than his selective use of an excuse for not answering.

One person earlier said his comments were easily verifiable by that font of truth, wikipedia.

This was in direct response to my comments where I compared his answers to two events;
the Tampa incident
and
the Dismissal

He could not comment on the one, because he wasn’t personally there, but oddly enough he could about the other (when he wasn’t personally there). The issue here, in the first instance is not about any ‘verifiable comments he can make about the Dismissal’ but his *excuse *for not commenting. Obviously one is able to learn about something - even if he chooses wiki to learn about it. I’m not sure if this is a tool used extensively by PhD students or not.

The evasion of one did not stand up because as a rule he’s able to comment on things that he didn’t personally experience. Such an excuse is applied in order to avoid engagement in facts about that matter.

As for his comments on the dismissal, dear reader, he still misses the fact that Howard was a beneficiary of that coup

Where I’m accused of being wrong is in fact on a point I didn’t raise. That I mentioned this, also seems to have been missed.

Whilst I acknowledge that George Cardinal Pell has said one aspect of WorkChoices has improved I evidenced factors such as the quality time workers can spend with their families. I evidenced this.

The best engagement on a site I’ve cited is to say it’s not the most damning of reports. I suppose there’s a ‘damnation scale’ that poster applied to this report.

Here’s some more references
IR laws favour bosses: Catholic Church
news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21989275-31037,00.html
Catholic Church urges workplace changes
smh.com.au/news/National/Catholic-Church-urges-workplace-changes/2007/06/29/1182624163884.html
Changes are needed to make Work Choices fairer – Catholic employment body
acbc.catholic.org.au/councils/er/20070630321.htm

And what’s this to do with Catholic teachings? Well here’s some more
Interventions Based On Church Teaching
Some of you may be aware that I have been active in the WorkChoices debate, and the reasons for that are based solely on Catholic teaching, my personal conviction about it, and my responsibility as a bishop to uphold the principles it enunciates. When I, or other bishops, speak out on social questions, we are not doing so to be meddlesome, to impose solutions on governments, nor indeed to seek converts to Catholicism. The Church speaks on this matter because work is an activity of the human person, and the Church is legitimately interested in the life of the human person.
parra.catholic.org.au/workchoiceforum.htm

The amount of times Church leaders, especially Catholics have appeared in news media condemning the Liberal government over IR and Workchoices would make me wonder how anyone could have thought that they support it, but mining hard enough one can find that Pell has said one aspect of WorkChoices has improved. For some this is surely enough to negate the rest of their comments

 

[Atreyu]

My internet connection has been down since I made my last post and so I was unable to complete it. Here is the rest:

Continued…

On the other hand, the issues surrounding the Tampa episode are much too complex for me to get into at the moment. I could do a few hours of research into it if you wish, but considering it isn’t even on-topic I just don’t see the point. Having missed out on all of the media reports of that event, I am starting from a big disadvantage. Besides, I’m not a Howard apologist and I just don’t see how it’s relevant. If you tell me that you dislike Howard because of what he did during the Tampa epsiode, then I will accept that as a rational reason and I will retract my previous comments that your dislike of Howard is irrational. However, I stand by my comments in my last post that it would be irrational to dislike Howard for events beyond his control.

Such selective reasoning also doesn’t add to the discussion… John Howard became a minister in the coup government.

Did he help Fraser before the event? Do you have any evidence that Howard had a hand in what happened, apart from the fact that he became a minister after it happened? Do you dislike all the subsequent Liberal ministers under Fraser for the same reason?

Then he advanced to being Tresurer, a much more senior position.

Good on him. Why not dislike Fraser instead? Do you dislike him as much as Howard?

He’s intereferred in the way the Federation works - happily choosing to under-fund hospitals,

I thought it was the States that funded hospitals! How can Howard underfund something that is not his responsibility to fund?

but then suddenly directly fund one in Tasmania in a key electorate.

I agree that this was blatant pork-barrelling, and I really don’t think that it is the best thing for this state. However, there are other community-run hospitals in Australia, aren’t there? So it’s really not that unusual.

While the Tasmania Labor government has been embarrassingly bad in health since the death of Jim Bacon - a man I consider to be the best Tassie premier I’ve known, by the way - they were finally getting their act together when Howard and Abbott stepped in. I wish they had not.

 

[Atreyu]

Dear reader I note some comments here completely miss the mark (again). My objection here was not about anything more than his selective use of an excuse for not answering.

One person earlier said his comments were easily verifiable by that font of truth, wikipedia.

This was in direct response to my comments where I compared his answers to two events;
the Tampa incident
and
the Dismissal

He could not comment on the one, because he wasn’t personally there, but oddly enough he could about the other (when he wasn’t personally there). The issue here, in the first instance is not about any ‘verifiable comments he can make about the Dismissal’ but his *excuse *for not commenting. Obviously one is able to learn about something - even if he chooses wiki to learn about it. I’m not sure if this is a tool used extensively by PhD students or not.

The evasion of one did not stand up because as a rule he’s able to comment on things that he didn’t personally experience. Such an excuse is applied in order to avoid engagement in facts about that matter.

Except that my reasoning for not responding to the Tampa episode was not “because I didn’t personally experience it”, but because I am too ignorant of the facts surrounding it. I am reserving judgement. On the other hand, it is an easily verifiable fact that Howard was not one of the main protagonists behind the Whitlam affair - for all I know he was not a protagonist at all. I don’t have a spare couple of hours to throw away on researching the culpability of Howard during the Tampa affair. But I do have a spare 2 minutes to quickly read about who were the main movers and shakers in the Whitlam affair.

As for his comments on the dismissal, dear reader, he still misses the fact that Howard was a beneficiary of that coup

I have not missed it, I just think it is an irrational reason to dislike Howard, as I have repeatedly said. It is like disliking a child who inherits money from their murdered parent; even though the child had nothing to do with the murder.

I’m not very good at thinking up analogies… However, I think this one is apt enough.

Whilst I acknowledge that George Cardinal Pell has said one aspect of WorkChoices has improved I evidenced factors such as the quality time workers can spend with their families. I evidenced this.

The best engagement on a site I’ve cited is to say it’s not the most damning of reports. I suppose there’s a ‘damnation scale’ that poster applied to this report.

The whole point of this thread is for me to investigate the Catholic position on Work Choices so that I can form an opinion. When I said that report was not that damning, what I meant was that it didn’t sufficiently demonstrate that Work Choices should be rejected by Catholics. Your grandstanding has not been helping me form my opinion.

Here’s some more references
IR laws favour bosses: Catholic Church
news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21989275-31037,00.html
Catholic Church urges workplace changes
smh.com.au/news/National/Catholic-Church-urges-workplace-changes/2007/06/29/1182624163884.html
Changes are needed to make Work Choices fairer – Catholic employment body
acbc.catholic.org.au/councils/er/20070630321.htm

From following some links in that last site you linked to, I found this. I feel that we could really make some progress, if we cut out all the **** and have a look at this document in a little more detail, because I have some further questions on it.

And what’s this to do with Catholic teachings? Well here’s some more

-snip-

The amount of times Church leaders, especially Catholics have appeared in news media condemning the Liberal government over IR and Workchoices would make me wonder how anyone could have thought that they support it, but mining hard enough one can find that Pell has said one aspect of WorkChoices has improved. For some this is surely enough to negate the rest of their comments

Antagonistic comments like these help no one. And no, I have not seen a large amount of Church leaders condemning the Liberal government in the media. I suppose this means I must be stupid.

 

[Elric]

WorkChoices is not just about a ‘fairness test’ but the fact it’s undermined living conditions for Australian families.

How so?

Unfair dismissal aspects of the legislation also affects families, and is of concern to Catholics
See Workplace Relations: A Catholic Perspective
ACCER, June 2007
adelaide.catholic.org.au/sites/JusticeandPeaceCommission/media/files/1346.pdf

Hold up.

The new unfair dismissal laws were put into place to protect small businessess, which are usually family run affairs. So either way you look at it, they affect families.

 

[Montalban]

How so?

I already mentioned one aspect regarding family time – you must have missed this ?

The new unfair dismissal laws were put into place to protect small businessess, which are usually family run affairs. So either way you look at it, they affect families.

If this were so, then they’re already spending time with their families

You also make an assumption about why these laws are put in place.

Although one poster here is keen to note one aspect of Cardinal Pell’s opinion – where he praises a review of the fairness test this in itself is not an ends. The fairness test has to be tested. So far out of all the Agreements lodged with the authority they’ve not gone through a third of them.

 

[Montalban]

One person linked a site
accer.asn.au/news/documents/ACatholicPerspectiveonIndustrialRelations.pdf

“To claim that this is sufficient to support a family in dignity and to
allow one parent to stay at home to support the children is to be out of touch with reality.”
(Ibid.)

This would not support a stance that the Liberals fairly legislate to the benefit of those not better off .

Also, it does say this about the issue of fairness…
Workplace Relations: A Catholic Perspective calls for further changes to the Work
Choices legislation in order to protect the poor and vulnerable, promote fairness in the
Australian workplace and achieve a proper balance between the rights of employers and
the rights of workers. It examines the recently introduced fairness test and finds it to be
insufficient.
(Ibid.; emphasis mine)

It is further evidence that, from a Catholic perspective the Liberal Governments laws do not protect those that most need protection

 

[Atreyu]

One person linked a site
accer.asn.au/news/documents/ACatholicPerspectiveonIndustrialRelations.pdf

“To claim that this is sufficient to support a family in dignity and to
allow one parent to stay at home to support the children is to be out of touch with reality.”
(Ibid.)

This would not support a stance that the Liberals fairly legislate to the benefit of those not better off .

Also, it does say this about the issue of fairness…
Workplace Relations: A Catholic Perspective calls for further changes to the Work
Choices legislation in order to protect the poor and vulnerable, promote fairness in the
Australian workplace and achieve a proper balance between the rights of employers and
the rights of workers. It examines the recently introduced fairness test and finds it to be
insufficient.
(Ibid.; emphasis mine)

It is further evidence that, from a Catholic perspective the Liberal Governments laws do not protect those that most need protection

I did read all that, yes. Like I said, I have some questions on this link, but I am not prepared to continue our discussion if it will continue as it has been going.

 

[Montalban]

After 3 pages of evidence one finds that the Catholic church to be deeply concerned about aspects of the Liberal governments IR laws.

The issue of fairness, itself has not been fully addressed - although a test has been modified there is such a backlog of applications that a number of workers will be operating under unfair conditions (based on how many that have been tested turn out to be actually unfair).

Australians are working longer hours. Family life is even more under seige

Two years ago the conservative Family First party cut its ties with the Liberal government over this very issue
abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1519650.htm

 

[mystified]

Before having an opinion on this, I’d need to read the actual document, just as I have done with Rerum Novarum which states the Church’s stand very adequately.
As a former union officer, I have strong leanings, but don’t like it when some unions, particularly those of public employees, abuse the system, almost “buying” elections.
I gather that Cardinal Pell favors a balance of some sort.

 

[Atreyu]

It seems I was wrong about the audience of this thread…

By the way Montalban, believe it or not I’m actually starting to come around to your way of thinking on Work Choices. I’m still don’t think it is an election-deciding issue, but I am starting to think that changes need to be made to the legislation.

I’ll be looking into it more closely, regardless. And I found your link to the Family First article to be quite interesting.

 

[Montalban]

Before having an opinion on this, I’d need to read the actual document, just as I have done with Rerum Novarum which states the Church’s stand very adequately.
As a former union officer, I have strong leanings, but don’t like it when some unions, particularly those of public employees, abuse the system, almost “buying” elections.
I gather that Cardinal Pell favors a balance of some sort.

Read which document? Pell’s? WorkChoices Act (which is actually the Workplace Relations Act? What?

I’d like to show a summary of two High Court Justices who disagreed with the act when tested before them
Kirby J (Dissenting)

The significant ideas put forward by Kirby J include:
At paragraph 481-3: it is unnecessary for this case to outline or define the scope of the corporations power. The corporations power is restrictions placed on laws regarding industrial disputes by s51(xxxv). What is forbidden is basing a law on one head of power (i.e. corporations power) when it is clearly a law with respect to another head of power (i.e. industrial disputes);
At paragraph 607: laws with respect to industrial disputes must fit within the two safeguards in s51(xxxv) namely interstateness and independent resolution;
At paragraph 609 (titled Preserving Industrial Fairness): the idea of a fair go that was at the heart of federal workplace laws is destroyed which has the potential to effect the core values that shaped the Australian Community and Economy; and
At paragraph 613: the high court should be attentive to the federal character of the Constitution.
Callinan J (Dissenting)

Callinan J summarises his judgment at paragraph 913. Generally, the reasons set down in paragraph 913 include:
The Constitution should be read as a whole;
The substance of the legislation in question is with regards to industrial affairs;
The industrial affairs power includes the two safe guards;
As much as the corporations power may purport to support the legislation, the power is still subject to the restrictions of the industrial affairs power for industrial affairs legislation;
To affirm the validity of the Act would be to trespass on the functions of the states; and
The validation of the Act would result in an unacceptable distortion of the federal balance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_v_Commonwealth_(2006

And, slightly before this…
The states have also argued that since the time of Federation, the industrial relations system in Australia has been largely state run. The Commonwealth does have the conciliation and arbitration power in the Constitution, but that section is specifically limited to interstate disputes, and does not extend to disputes existing entirely within one state.
(Ibid.)

This is not so much an argument against the fairness of the Act, but against the way our Federation is being erroded by the current government (noted also by their direct funding of some public hospitals).

Kirby and Callinan JJ are very much different people. One is seen as fairly radical, the other an apointee of the current government.

Certainly Cardinal Pell favours a balance, all in this issue would say that. It’s a matter of where one draws the line.

His Emmience is more happy about some recent changes, but his opposition to this runs deeper than that.