Written By: - Date published: 12:15 pm, June 18th, 2008 - 81 comments
Categories: workers' rights -
Tags: alp, australian politics, kevin rudd, workchoices
Kevin Rudd’s Labor government has begun the roll-back of John Howard’s unpopular WorkChoices legislation with ten new National Employment Standards aimed at providing a safety net for all Australian workers.
The new standards include a 38-hour maximum working week, 12 months unpaid parental leave (24 months between a couple), flexible working hours, redundancy rights and four weeks annual leave.
These are pretty basic work rights and in my view don’t go nearly far enough, but already Australian business and their political vehicle the Liberal Party are screaming that the package will increase business costs and make Australia uncompetitive.
Seems the New Zealand right may have to find another free market paradise to pack up and leave for if they don’t get their way. Somalia, anyone?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Tane,
I wasn’t at that conference, but I enjoyed Wayne Mapp’s spell as IR spokesman (sic: it is the National Party we’re talking about here). Every time there was a strike he would issue a press release about how the Employment Relations Act was visiting upon unsuspecting NZ a reign of industrial bedlam. Which never eventuated. Such a prat.
I have to endorse what you say about Rudd’s platform. Particularly with the IR, it is quite conservative and doesn’t roll back some of the more invidious Howard reforms.
And finally, why is it that Phil et al. can’t understand that our statutory and common law of employment is riddled with “reasonable” and this doesn’t cause any great problems?
Perhaps, but that distinction is the pointless bickering
I agree that it isn’t relevant to the case you were making, but it’s going to be a pretty important distinction come November.
“And finally, why is it that Phil et al. can’t understand that our statutory and common law of employment is riddled with “reasonable’ and this doesn’t cause any great problems?”
Why is reasonable OK in employment law, but not OK in, say, s59?
That sure as hell caused ‘great problems’.
Phil: Legislators found that the implementation by the judiciary of `reasonable’ was in this case not adequately protecting children from being beaten by their parents (in a small minority of cases). This is a specific case where `reasonable’ was found to not be sufficient, so it was changed. This is how the legislature and the judiciary are supposed to interact.
If you can make some other specific, individual cases for `reasonable’ to be replaced with something else in law, then fair enough. But advocating for blanket removal of the term from everything is a different matter.
L
Lew,
It wasn’t the judiciary who applied the reasonableness test in s59 cases, it was the jury. It was a question of fact. So one jury’s “reasonable” could be quite different to another’s. One or two errant jury decisions didn’t warrant changing the law, which actually was very sensible.
Billy: I used the term `judiciary’ in the looser sense of the legal system, not strictly judges – sorry, that’s not strictly correct.
I agree that one jury’s `reasonable’ would clearly be different to another’s, but the point I’m making is that the legislature – and a sizeable majority of the legislature – decided that this wasn’t good enough.
My point stands.
L
Phil:
“There is a big difference between “a lot of labour supporters’ as I wrote, and “all pakeha labour supporters’”
Democratic pluralism is a progressive cause which acknowledges and seeks to redress the real differences in power between various social cleavages in society. That’s called justice (that people be given equal opportunity). The view that this is racism (that groups are subjugated and victimised as a result of prejudice) is simply moronic. Progressive pluralism has been mainstream for 20 years, yet the groups you say are they prey of racism are still enjoy most of the power and privilege in society.
Phil:
“Why is reasonable OK in employment law, but not OK in, say, s59?”
I’ve already answered this. In some areas of law there are just too many “reasonable” permutations to list them all in the legislation. in some areas you need it, in some you don’t. You just don’t seem to get it. Are you playing thick or are you genuinely stupid?
Roger,
racism
“Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”
I think we can agree on that definition, it’s broader that then one you seem to have used, but I tend to view racism in a wider context than just subjugation.
Now, where we differ…
You think reversing the racism makes up for past injustice. That it balances out on average.
Me, I think that’s about the best method you can get if you want to perpetuate ignorance and intolerance on both sides.
Phil:
Racism:
“Discrimination or prejudice based on race.’
Treating social groups in a prejudiced way isn’t always a bad thing. i.e. We have gender-based toilets, though not all men are perverts, and it does no one any harm.
The problem with prejudiced law is when it comes to subjugate and disenfranchise people because of the group they belong to (i.e. South Arica, Third Riech), then it becomes a matter of justice.
Democratic pluralism, on the other hand, whilst it may lead to prejudice laws, empowers disenfranchised minorities whilst leaving the traditionally socially advantaged group with power. In this case prejudiced law serves justice rather than working against it. See what I mean?
Also – it’s rubbish to argue that democratic pluralism encourages ignorance, in fact it achieves the very opposite by encouraging people to be aware of the ways in which social groups are unfairly socially disadvantaged. Though if you’re an ignorant white male who benefits from their subjugation i guess you’re unlikely to see it that way.