this election had absolutely nothing to do with iraq. howard was re-elected during the "iraq debacle".
iraq was barely mentioned during the campaign.
the ALP is hardly a "left" party Q5.
the two biggest contributors were that he'd been in power for 11 years (aussies like change) and the new industrial relations laws. primarily the latter.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
this election had absolutely nothing to do with iraq. howard was re-elected during the "iraq debacle".
iraq was barely mentioned during the campaign.
the ALP is hardly a "left" party Q5.
the two biggest contributors were that he'd been in power for 11 years (aussies like change) and the new industrial relations laws. primarily the latter.
thanks. seriously, i was waiting for your 2 cents
ok the ALP is not as left, but i believe the leading issues dealt with definitive lib/con arguments.
and what about the "Abodiginals"?
the mainstreammedia in this country PKC, is spinning it as purely a referendum on Bush policy...and on a certain level i can accept that. but the hate-Bush-at-all-costs bandwagon like Krypton and Opus (this thread for example) are going to kick and scream if told anything otherwise from a non-Aussie.
to me the concept of forming a worldview that revolves soley around hating Buler at all costs is dangerous intellectually and at other levels.
Lilith
Both parties are relatively conservative in terms of left/right political orientation, its just that the Liberal party began to swing from libertarian right into authoritarian right (which wasn't taken very well by the vast majority of the population) and Labor was offering a libertarian left. It's also fairly rare that people would adopt any form of extreme government here and as proven time and time again, anyone who goes towards either authoritarian left or right, gets the punt.
Which is what killed off the Keating government back in the 90's, people where sick of being talked down too and the circle comes around to where the liberal party begins acting with more and more bravado in their policies and behaviour, then they get the ass and out the door. What killed him in the end was 'Work Choices' which is a very backwards and awkward re-write of the employment laws that was very intrusive on all levels of social strata.
Howard's government had very little do do with Australia's current prosperity, that was already starting to pick up with a lot of the early 90's mineral exports which had been kicking off into the asian markets, as reviled as he was later to become, also owe a lot to the Keating government who was very open diplomatically with the nearest asian neighbours. However, Keating and Hawke before him, where prone to be spending more than they made and racking up a lot of economic debt, though it did end up into the social infrastructure with 'middling' to 'overly charitable' effect.
(Like most public servants, they're inefficient and useless with money)
Rudd will most likely be a lot more cautious in this area.
Howard made a lot of fuss about how he had the country in the black as far as debt goes, at the top perhaps it made for good numbers but like a lot of things, the reality at ground level is that-
Australians are edging closer to Americans in terms of personal debt they can't manage
Nothing was being spent on infrastructure, there was a lot of promises to do so, but nothing ever materialised. So the hospitals, roads and water supplies are in a complete mess.
Privatisation was also one of the ways of raising money to pay off the debt, most people where direly unhappy with the sale of national telco's and power suppliers. Mostly because being private businesses, where not liable to do much development unless there was some government $ being thrown at it.
As a result, Australia is a backwater as far as internet access goes, for a former 'international' myself it's like using an inkwell, expensive, slow and quite crap. Personal criticisms aside, the lack of national infrastructure in this area is hampering grassroots small business and education in remote areas. I mean there are still schools out there running on early 1990's access of 128k ISDN (for the WHOLE school!) for goodness sakes!
Education is really a joke while I'm on the subject, immense amounts get plunged into private schooling and the government ones are very, very poor indeed. Universities are also rolling in high costs which are increasingly inflated by fee up-front overseas students, something I know very well having paid for the majority of my partners tuition fees for the last 18 months. You pay up front, take out massive loans or stay dumb...
Immense amounts of public money spent on advertising government policy which was hoped to 'enlighten' the general public in their activities, quite selectively and many with some very heavy bias which had no apparent bearing on what actually eventuated once they hit 'the real world'. It provided endless amusement for the press to rip to pieces anyway, which will be missed.
I think the crux at the end of the day, is that Howard always promised a lot, but he never delivered and if anything was delivered, it wasn't something people wanted. Like the fact the country is looking down the worst drought in living history, but there's no federally funded dam building, no instead they're off buying 2nd hand yank surplus military hardware (which is absolute junk) and then gallivanting off to one of the many regional and international conflicts.
Surprisingly of which had very little bearing on the current election along with some very draconian anti-terror laws which where instituted in the last term. It appears that most Australians (to some degree, quite rightly) consider 'wars on terror' a complete farce and media beat up. Something the Labor campaign was quick to use, that the Liberals had been running 'scare' campaigns for the last 11 years and stupidly, the Liberals tended to just keep batting away on the same scare tactics which had carried them through the last couple of elections instead of doing a change of tack. Union bashing in combination with extremely unpopular changes to employment laws made for a very silly duo...
Though, personally I dread Labor getting back in, like most 2-party systems, they all tend to be a little extreme left or right towards the end of their tenure and they do have a reputation for being deep and stupid when digging into the public purse on occasion. But I'll reserve judgement on the Rudd government until we see them in action, for better or worse. Rudd does have a lot of charisma like Blair did though, so even if he does suck, people are still going to like him, Howard had the charisma of a doddering fool which didn't help him any either.
Darkarbiter
Well I dunno about you guys but I just want my free laptop...
anyone got any idea what they're gonna be ordering?
Dupz
interesting to see so many non-australians posting on the first page..
I'm actually quite suprised at the election result. Not so much the Rudd win, but the fact that it was sizable. I honestly thought that peoples mood for change would falter a little at the ballot box when they were pressed to move from over a decade of unrivalled prosperity.
Economics
It's the first time ever in an Australian federal election that the leader who's seen as the better economic manager hasnt won (cant source that, but i've seen it around a few times). Despite this shift in focus, Howards coalition seemed to push the economic point. My reasoning for this shift in focus is because people have had 16 years of positive growth, and the electorate is taking it for granted. Much of the electorate isnt old enough to have understood or cared about negative growth. Besides, Howard didnt push on how good his economic management has been/going to be, but rather how poor the opposition was back in the early 90s. They ran a fear campaign on interest rates rising to previous historic levels of 17% and the such. This tactic didnt work, considering they themselves made it clear that the government has no control over the central banks' setting of the cash rate.
Industrial Relations
The industrial relations battle (which was easily the main drawcard for this election) was well and truly won by the opposition. They pounced on the opportunity to run their fear campaign that everyone was going to lose their jobs because their bosses have sooo much power :rolleyes:. That or you were going to lose your full time job and have to work on a casual contract at a lower rate, and work on weekends, without meal breaks. Sound stupid, but it worked. Despite unemployment being at 30 year lows and illiterate dimwits holding cushy well paid jobs, people were still scared stiff by it.
The coalition did absolutely nothing to counter this campaign, even failing to push the fact that 70-80% of new jobs since the introduction fo the laws were full time contracts, while unemployment continued to drop and wage growth was still stupidly high (4-5% per year if i'm not mistaken, well ahead of 2.1% inflation for the year).
Environment
Failure to ratify Kyoto was a big negative for the government, as they lost all their credibility on the issue for there on (easy pickings for the opposition). This was a rather important issue for younger voters (who flooded towards the opposition vote on this issue). There was no contest on this issue.. like shooting fish in a barrel really.
War on terror
Suprisingly, a non-issue. Both parties agreed on Afghanistan, but the opposition wants to take combat troops out of Iraq.. popular policy, and uncontroversial really. Receive little/no press.
Shifting attitudes
I personally think that Australia was simply ready for a change. They've grown tired of a government that has begun pushing an Americanised form of governance. Pushing a culture of fear (through things like constant advertising on the new 'national security hotline') doesnt work too well on an electorate that is renowned worldwide as being relaxed (cmon, all we do is sit on the beach sunbaking, yeah? :)).
Rudd won the election by copying much of Howards economic policy (actually, he plagiarised the hell out of him) - negating this advantage that Howard has. He promised to ratify Kyoto and revert his industrial relations laws (which wont happen unless he gets control of the senate) which set the difference between the two.
From there, all Kevin Rudd did was pitch his image as a younger/fresher version of John Howard himself. Take a look at the two guys, they look very similar except that Rudd has a little more hair. He came across as witty and charismatic (which he definately has). An unoffensive guy who looks like a more chilled version of Howard.
I just hope they dont fuk the place up with any socialist leaning bull (i.e. reverting industrial relations reform) and continue with their reformist ideals of the 80s. I'm sure they'll be fine.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
the mainstreammedia in this country PKC, is spinning it as purely a referendum on Bush policy...and on a certain level i can accept that. but the hate-Bush-at-all-costs bandwagon like Krypton and Opus (this thread for example) are going to kick and scream if told anything otherwise from a non-Aussie.
to me the concept of forming a worldview that revolves soley around hating Buler at all costs is dangerous intellectually and at other levels.
You really must be having a difficult time telling the large majority of the world your feelings then, don't you? Because who's left in the world that really supports Bush? What is the majority sentiment to that idiot, not just in our own country of course, but worldwide?
Now I will concede that my initial post:
quote:
Supporting the Iraq War debacle and cozying up to Bush really did Howard a lotta good:
Was presumptuous and incorrect, and I'm happy to retract that upon further reading on all the issues that Howard lost. This editorial was especially enlightening:
What did concern me, however, was certain comments like this made by Howard:
quote:
If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for [Barack] Obama, but also for the Democrats.
To which Rudd happily bitchslapped Howard into next week with this reply:
quote:
Mr Rudd said Mr Howard should be censured over his comment yesterday that terrorist network al-Qaeda would be hoping for a Democratic candidate to win next year's US presidential election.—It also accuses Mr Howard of “gross insensitivity” for lecturing the United States on Iraq when the war has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 US servicemen and women.
Mr Rudd demanded that Mr Howard withdraw his comments unreservedly.
How can the man who is Prime Minister of this country come into this parliament and say that he is a person of experience on the question of national security when within the last 24 hours he has made the statement that, when it comes to the operation of al-Qaeda and its dealings in the world of international affairs today, somehow al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation that would prefer to see a Democrat win the next presidential election rather than any other representative of
another political party? The Prime Minister today has inserted that in fact he was only making a reference to Mr Obama, one of the US Democratic Party presidential candidates. It is important that we place this unequivocally on the record. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave this answer to a question in relation to the Obama plan: Yes, I think he is wrong. I mean, he is a long way from being President of United States. I think he is wrong. I think that that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and to hope for an Obama victory. If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory— not only for Obama but also for the Democrats. That is not an addition invented by the Australian Labor Party. That is not an addition invented by anybody else. That was spoken, or would we dare say misspoken, yesterday by the Prime Minister of Australia on a matter of great consequence—that is, the future of this country’s relationship with the United States, particularly on the question of the future direction of Iraq policy. To accuse the Democratic Party of the United States of being al-Qaeda’s party of choice, to accuse the Democratic Party of being the terrorists’ party of choice, to accuse the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson of being the terrorists’ party of choice is a most serious charge. I cannot understand how any responsible leader of this country can say to the nation that it is his serious view that the Democratic Party of
the United States is the terrorists’ party of choice. But these are your words, Prime Minister. I did not invent them; they are yours. In this parliament today we gave you every opportunity to say that you got it wrong.
The SPEAKER—Order! The leader will refer his remarks through the chair.
Mr RUDD—We gave the Prime Minister every opportunity
to say that it was wrong. It may have been that he got caught up in the flurry of the interview. It may have been that he did not hear it clearly. It may have been that he did not understand it clearly. I understand that these things can happen, but the Prime Minister was given not once, not twice but on three separate occasions in this place today an opportunity to say, ‘I got that wrong; I didn’t mean that.’ For him to pass up each of those opportunities says much about the partisan way this Prime Minister now views the relationship with our great American ally.
Let us be absolutely clear about what is at stake here. This is not just an attack on a single US senator but an attack upon an entire political party. Here is where Australia’s national interest kicks in: the Democratic Party currently controls the majority in the United
States House, controls the majority in the United States Senate and, within a year or so, may control the White House itself. In this parliament today, this country’s Prime Minister has reaffirmed that he describes this party as the terrorists’ party of choice. This is a serious matter.
Prime Minister, can you imagine if I stood up in this parliament as the alternative Prime Minister and said to the people of Australia that the terrorists would be advantaged if the Republicans were to return to the White House at the next presidential election? Ponder for a moment how that would be regarded. How would it be seized on by those opposite? Can you imagine the reaction from those opposite if I stood at this dispatch box or appeared on national television and said that the Republicans, if they won, would cause an eruption of joy on the part of al-Qaeda and on the part of terrorists? This is a grave mistake and I fear that it reflects a deep view on the part of the Prime Minister about those within the US political system with whom he
may not share a view.
And of course, gloating, mocking, declarations of victory (a bit too early) were rather commonplace for our little Bush-supporter:
So while I'll concede that this may not have been a central issue for the people of Australia to slap Howard's ass not just out of being P.M. but out of his own seat in Parliament (which is rather rare, isn't it?), I can't help but have a sense of relief seeing another Bush loyalist who clung so tightly to this debacle of a war lose his election.
Krypton
HA! The Bush derangement syndrome always makes me chuckle just a little bit...:rolleyes: :haha:
I'm sure the people of Pakistan have Masharaf derangement syndrome..:stongue: :stongue:
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You really must be having a difficult time telling the large majority of the world your feelings then, don't you?
i call it rational thought. as opposed to irrational when it comes to developing an entire worldview around hating one person.
quote:
Because who's left in the world that really supports Bush? What is the majority sentiment to that idiot, not just in our own country of course, but worldwide?
who's left? plenty of people. plenty of rational people who may not agree with everything Bush does but certainly rational enough to not take it to the extreme hatred that you and your ilk have to convince eachother of on a daily basis in order to convince others your point of view. this thread is a prime example.
quote:
Now I will concede that my initial post:
no. you will concede this entire f**king thread.
quote:
What did concern me, however, was certain comments like this made by Howard:
To which Rudd happily bitchslapped Howard into next week with this reply:
whats your point about this exchange between Howard and Rudd? is it that the politics of fighting murderous religious zealots may be universal among leaders of free nations? or not-so-free nations?
i wonder how many of those same exchanges and thoughts have occurred in other countries among their leaders and citizens? i would believe it occurs quite frequently. would you agree that an exchange like that is, at least, debatable?
the Democraps, as a party, are completly invested in something resembling what Howard is implying right? it's easy to accuse him of being "insensitive", thats politics. but now that Rudd has won and never really made the American Democrat policy of defeat a real issue he has demonstrated something resembling cunning now that of only 1000 Aussie boots on the ground, he's only retrieving 45% pecent of those. that would have been acceptable in any case now that we've made our gains. again, i would call that politics. smart politics.
so my question, why aren't you holding Rudd to account of yours and US Democrat standards now that Howard is a non-issue?
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
HA! The Bush derangement syndrome always makes me chuckle just a little bit...:rolleyes: :haha:
i would hope you swallow a little pride and take it somewhat seriously.
BDS is not something to be taken lightly.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i call it rational thought.
Sorry, for a second there I got a little coffee up my nose when I read this.
quote:
as opposed to irrational when it comes to developing an entire worldview around hating one person.
Well you'll have to excuse me for saying that I think you dwindling 30 percenters who've cling so tightly to your idiot president have shown that enlightening "rationality" that we in large majority of our own country, let alone the world can stomach. Because your little minority has done quite the bang-up job ing up things for our country and in the world enough as it is, and will take decades to clean up your mess.
But call it as you will. So long as you slowly and continually get pushed to the back of the room, hopefully your passing gas won't continue to stink up the rest of the place as much.
quote:
who's left? plenty of people. plenty of rational people who may not agree with everything Bush does but certainly rational enough to not take it to the extreme hatred that you and your ilk have to convince eachother of on a daily basis in order to convince others your point of view. this thread is a prime example.
I love your cute little generalizations, but it changes nothing let alone the fact that you're dutiful, undying support of your president is in a minority of this country and the rest of the world.
But not only are you creating generalizations of "hate" filled bull that you continually resort to in hopes to painting those who disagree with you and Bush, you are once again parsing words and playing semantics on what the world truly believes and thinks about Bush. Honestly I don't give a rat's ass if those in the world "hate" Bush or disagree with him, the point you cannot escape is that few actually do agree with Bush and his dumb foreign policies, let alone domestic ones.
And if you're having a difficult time understanding that, say the word and I'll happily pull out opinion polls in regards to the American and world sentiment towards Bush. But you know where that will lead, and I'm guessing you're more than willing to play the ignorant boob anyway. The only thing you're after is your Coulter-esque masquerade baiting on anyone who disagrees with you and your president.
Of course it works on me, but it's been painfully obvious who's party and which poster has clearly represented the word "hate" over the past 6 years. Your party has been built on nothing but hate and vitriole, but the irony of you pointing your silly fingers at others who despise what this president has done to our country and yell out "HATER!!!" and play your silly victim card simply cannot be overstated enough.
And I'll be happy to point that out to you every ing time.
quote:
no. you will concede this entire f**king thread.
Umm, no, I'll concede my original point, and restate the following:
quote:
So while I'll concede that this may not have been a central issue for the people of Australia to slap Howard's ass not just out of being P.M. but out of his own seat in Parliament (which is rather rare, isn't it?), I can't help but have a sense of relief seeing another Bush loyalist who clung so tightly to this debacle of a war lose his election.
Sorry if that still discerns you. Grab a ing tissue or something.
quote:
whats your point about this exchange between Howard and Rudd? is it that the politics of fighting murderous religious zealots may be universal among leaders of free nations? or not-so-free nations?
Hmm, I wonder with such a conclusion you actually read Rudd's reply. Where did he ever discuss "fighting murderous zealots"? I believe Rudd made my argument for me. You might actually want to read his reply before answering next time.
quote:
i wonder how many of those same exchanges and thoughts have occurred in other countries among their leaders and citizens? i would believe it occurs quite frequently. would you agree that an exchange like that is, at least, debatable?
Uhh, no, not even close. As Rudd aptly states:
quote:
To accuse the Democratic Party of the United States of being al-Qaeda’s party of choice, to accuse the Democratic Party of being the terrorists’ party of choice, to accuse the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson of being the terrorists’ party of choice is a most serious charge. I cannot understand how any responsible leader of this country can say to the nation that it is his serious view that the Democratic Party of the United States is the terrorists’ party of choice.
The statement is beyond ridiculous to make, but it does serve quite well in the infamous neocon scare-tactic archives.
quote:
the Democraps, as a party, are completly invested in something resembling what Howard is implying right?
You really think I would agree to that garbage?
quote:
it's easy to accuse him of being "insensitive", thats politics.
I could care less if he's insensitive. Stupid comes more to mind.
quote:
but now that Rudd has won and never really made the American Democrat policy of defeat a real issue he has demonstrated something resembling cunning now that of only 1000 Aussie boots on the ground, he's only retrieving 45% pecent of those. that would have been acceptable in any case now that we've made our gains. again, i would call that politics. smart politics.
And again I concede the original point that Iraq was not a central issue. Whooptie ing doo.
And I still celebrate the fact that a Bush loyalist like Howard is now gone for good, not just from the PM spot but from Parliament.
Doesn't that just make you feel all warm inside, Q?
quote:
so my question, why aren't you holding Rudd to account of yours and US Democrat standards now that Howard is a non-issue?
Time will tell. Unlike your Bush-loyalist who just got his ass handed to him who likes to make predictions on candidates that aren't even in office yet, I'd prefer to hold judgement on Rudd and see what he decides to do. Gosh, that must seem a bit "irrational" compared to such "rational" thoughts like that from Howard to you.
But if you want my initial opinion on his Iraqi policies it's this: It's his country and he can do as he pleases with his troops in Iraq. However I disagree with him, and if he continues to hold troops in Iraq then he should be equally held accountable in time. If anything the British have demonstrated that indeed the presence of troops may have been a big part of the violence itself:
It's borderline senility, or maybe it's dementia, that creeps into the minds of that Bush-loyalist minority who paint the rest of the world as "irrational." But then again, they shout the loudest, so unfortunately their voices continue to be heard.......
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Dupz Industrial Relations
The industrial relations battle (which was easily the main drawcard for this election) was well and truly won by the opposition. They pounced on the opportunity to run their fear campaign that everyone was going to lose their jobs because their bosses have sooo much power :rolleyes:. That or you were going to lose your full time job and have to work on a casual contract at a lower rate, and work on weekends, without meal breaks. Sound stupid, but it worked. Despite unemployment being at 30 year lows and illiterate dimwits holding cushy well paid jobs, people were still scared stiff by it.
The coalition did absolutely nothing to counter this campaign, even failing to push the fact that 70-80% of new jobs since the introduction fo the laws were full time contracts, while unemployment continued to drop and wage growth was still stupidly high (4-5% per year if i'm not mistaken, well ahead of 2.1% inflation for the year).
wow, you are so wrong in so many ways i don't know where to start.
anywayz, can you show me the causal link between in the new jobs and the new industrial laws? haha, that's right! there isn't any. most of the full-time contracts were signed in WA. where were the corresponding employment gains in NSW and VIC? oh that's right, those places have far fewer mining operations. the favourable employment figures were due to the resources boom, and i hope i dont have to tell you that wasn't howard's doing.
you ARE mistaken about wages growth. every single study that has been commissioned regarding IR has shown that those on AWAs have less conditions and less pay.
quote:
SENIOR academics are threatening legal action against the Federal Government after it attacked the credibility of their study showing low-skilled workers were around $100 a week worse off under Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).
The study involved data from more than 8300 people which assessed changes to workplace bargaining since the introduction of the Government's Work Choices industrial relations laws.
The Australia at Work study, billed as the most comprehensive yet of the impact of Work Choices, concluded those on AWAs earned on average $106 a week less than those on collective agreements, with both groups working an average 44 hours a week.
Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey said the report was not credible because it was partially funded by Unions New South Wales and because the academics had done work for unions in the past.
"It is the same old flawed research from the same old union academics," he said.
"It contradicts far more reliable findings from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
"It is hardly surprising that academics such as John Buchanan and Brigid van Wanrooy, who have previously authored ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) research, would come up with such a flawed report."
But unions and the University of Sydney academics pointed out the report was also partially funded by the Government's own Australian Research Council (ARC).
Dr Buchanan, co-author of the study and director of Sydney University's Workplace Research Centre, said he had sought legal advice about the Government's accusations and was considering defamation action.
"We would prefer not to have this settled in court ... but if the Government persists in saying very hurtful and very untrue statements about us we will be left with no other option than to use the protection of the common law," he told ABC Radio.
"To accuse academics of concocting a story is probably the most vile thing you can say abut somebody who prides themselves on the pursuit of the truth."
Asked if he would apologise, Mr Hockey told ABC Radio: "I am always happy to apologise to anyone who feels affronted by my behaviour.
"But I do recognise that I have a right to point out the history of research undertaken by a number of academics and point out that the research in this case is being paid for by the union movement."
Dr van Wanrooy, another co-author of the report, said Mr Hockey's comments were "outrageous" and she had only once before been involved in research with any union association, in 2001.
Prime Minister John Howard said he also believed the ABS figures were more reliable than the report's figures.
"The ABS tell us that people are better off under AWAs," he said.
"They tell us that wages after inflation have risen by 3 per cent since the new industrial relations system came into operation.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd said the study revealed significant deterioration in payments to working families.
"It's very clear-cut – under Mr Howard's Work Choices legislation we've seen penalty rates and overtime stripped away from working families," he said.
The report also found that 5.6 per cent of workers – about 450,000 of them – were currently on AWAs.
WOMEN in low-paid jobs are even worse off under the Federal Government's Work Choices regime, a NSW Government-funded study has found.
NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca will announce the NSW study's findings in full later today.
But this morning he said women at the lower paid end of the jobs spectrum were being exploited under the Federal Government's new workplace laws.
"They are left in a situation with diminished circumstances, diminished mental health, and of course a diminished ability to contribute to the community," he told ABC radio.
The study of 25 NSW women was jointly funded by the State Government and the University of Sydney, and was written by Associate Professor Marian Baird and Dr Rae Cooper.
They undertook in-depth interviews with women in low-paid jobs, who they say have been directly affected by Work Choices.
Low-paid women, whose wages and conditions were previously guaranteed by the award system, are among the most vulnerable to the changes introduced by Work Choices, the study said.
These women have suffered pay cuts, work intensification, job insecurity and frequent abuses of managerial power, the authors said.
They found women are struggling financially as a result of the changes at work and this is having a direct effect on their capacity for financial independence.
To make ends meet, they are becoming more dependent upon family members, male partners and welfare.
As well, the study found considerable evidence that women had internalised many of the changes and felt powerless and fearful as a result.
This had made women less healthy and more unhappy, and was proving corrosive to family and community life, it found.
indeed, i saw NO studies that supported the government's point of view when it came to IR.
quote:
I just hope they dont fuk the place up with any socialist leaning bull (i.e. reverting industrial relations reform) and continue with their reformist ideals of the 80s. I'm sure they'll be fine.
"socialist" -let's keep this debate serious shall we? :rolleyes: the hawke-keating government were so liberal in their economic performance it was ridiculous. and finding an equitable balance in IR is hardly "socialist".
