inoact of Oz Election Result?

[Alan Collett]

So far as I recall the arguments for Workchoices were along the lines that in an economy that is operating at close to full capacity more flexibility is needed so that employers and employees can agree on wages that are appropriate to each person's circumstances.

I agree though the implementation was clumsy, and the failure on the part of the Coalition to make this an issue at the 2004 election on which the electorate could vote was a major factor behind the election result yesterday.

This said, getting a majority in both Houses after the 2004 election gave the Howard Government the opportunity to make the significant changes to workplace relations it had probably been wanting to make for a long time, but had not had the means to achieve because the Senate would have blocked any such proposals.

Having a majority in the House of Reps and the Senate caused the Coalition to overstep the mark - they were punished big time yesterday.

What now? The economic facts are that the unemployment rate in Australia is the lowest it has been in decades. Inflation is low but with upward pressures due to supply constraints (why do you think Australia requires so many skilled migrants?). If labour costs start becoming too expensive, Government imposes additional regulation on business, and interest rates increase my concern is that global business with manufacturing (eg the car industry) may decide to bail out of Australia. The consequence: up goes unemployment - and no employment is (I suggest) worse than employment with Workchoices.

My hunch is that we won't see a significant roll back of Workchoices - I recall Kevin Rudd has said he is not going to agree to all the demands of the unions. A modern economy needs flexibility, and small business (which is the employer of a significant number of Australians) needs the ability to hire and (reasonably) fire as business conditions dictate.

We live in interesting times ...

Best regards.

[Alan Collett]

Originally Posted by fatpom

I don't think the Senate will be an issue for legis. It operates similar to the House of Lords, that is, as a check and balance to legis. The irony is that had Labor held the balance in the Senate the libs could possibly still be in power but with a reduced margin due to other issues like environment etc. From what I understand its unusual for the gov of the day to hold power in both the House of Reps & Senate (but I'm not too sure about this? I'm quoting journos without being certain of their facts?).

<snip>

I believe the Senate in Australia has more authority than the House of Lords in the UK. It is an elected Chamber for one thing (being elected on the basis of proportional representation).

Also, the Senate actively reviews and amends legislation before it is sent back to the House of Representatives. If the House of Reps disagrees with the amendments the legislation reverts to the Senate again. I believe this to-ing and fro-ing can only take place so many times before it triggers a double dissolution of Parliament under the Australian Constitution - someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Best regards.

[soul]

hi gill,
I am also hopeing that I will be allowed to go and live and work in oz, the new government will change things and I want it to be for people like me who has a house to sell here in scotland and is 55 years old ,fit and willing to work, only having friends in melbourne does not help me at all.
there must be many people like me who just wants to live and work in australia without asking the government for any handouts.
we dont all have family in australia my kids want to stay here in scotland at this moment in time, but who knows a few years time they might want to live and work in australia, I dont want to wait and hope that they will decide to move over to australia, I want to be independant and do things for myself rather than depend on my son and daughter.
I read this site often and it seems to me that even people with a skill find it difficult to move to australia as the paperwork must seem endless, but if it is what you really want then you must never give up,I will keep going with my dream of living in australia and maybe one day my prayers will be answered.
kind regards val.

[fatpom]

Originally Posted by Alan Collett

I believe the Senate in Australia has more authority than the House of Lords in the UK. It is an elected Chamber for one thing (being elected on the basis of proportional representation).

Also, the Senate actively reviews and amends legislation before it is sent back to the House of Representatives. If the House of Reps disagrees with the amendments the legislation reverts to the Senate again. I believe this to-ing and fro-ing can only take place so many times before it triggers a double dissolution of Parliament under the Australian Constitution - someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Best regards.

Your description about amendments and to-ing and fro-ing is also largely correct about the House of Lords. I could be wrong but the only real difference between the H of Reps and the H of Lords is as you say the lords aren't elected.
The to-ing and fro-ing in the H of Lords is time limited (I think it's time rather than number of ammendments) whereby they must then accept the original legis with its ammendments. I understand as you say in Aus it goes to the threat of double dissolution effectively putting the Senators (and their colleagues in the Hof Reps) out of work triggering an election?
I recall from my school days that the Lords had to accept the time limit for the first time when the House of Lords refused to accept the introduction of "income tax for those earning over 5000 quid" at the beginning of the 1900's. Obviously it only affected the lords and their like at that time. A stand off occurred and was eventually resolved with the 'time limit' option under threat of the commons dissolving the lords (if I recall correctly? - this is old school stuff) this would have put the lords out of work permanently and perhaps forced a new elected upper house and the lords definately didn't want that.
The genius of the two house system is its check and balances aspect preventing goverments from oversteppping the mark... I think WorkChoices is a prime example of how effective loss of this control system can allow the more distasteful political dogma to prevail.