Revived: The Occasional Meet The Press Live Blog

I had to revive it, with the colourful Mr Andrew Robb, spearhead of WorkChoices, as guest!

Aha - I was waiting until the pension issue would come up. In my opinion, this is one of the two sleeping giants of the IR issue (I'm not going to mention the other one in case the ACTU are holding onto it for a later attack). It works this way - the pension is set based on the minimum wage, the way the minimum wage is going to be set will change - hence, if the minimum wage declines over time, so too do pensions. Making pensioners angrier and poorer is not a wise thing.

Holy shit ... this is the guy who's going to save it all for the government? He's doing a pretty lousy job! Crikey ... if this is `cutting through' ...

It's quite scary to find myself agreeing with Dr Peter Jensen. But what Greg Turnbull says is true - you can have $20m worth of advertising, but advertising is not going to change the minds of the Peter Jensens of the world. What I can't understand is how they can play this line of `Oh, we're just extending and building upon the family friendly clauses that are part of many enterprise agreements nowadays'. It doesn't take a genius to work out that these clauses are only there because unions have campaigned long and hard for them to be there, they didn't emerge from thin air.

This business about not being able to understand an award or certified agreement is absolute rubbish. I myself am just a bone-headed union organiser and I can understand my certified agreement. I can also help people I represent understand their certified agreement. That's the way a union works. It's all very logical when I say it, isn't it Mr Robb?

(Hahaa ... the irony ... here's one of the ads! Now, is it just me, but do all the actors in the WorkChoices ads look distinctly uneasy? Like `Mate - give me a thumbs up. NOW! Or you're OUT ON YOUR ARSE!)

Part Two
The Panel Louise Dodson, SMH; Brad Norrington, the Australian

Isn't it terrible that Beazley can really get stuck into Howard like that and all you can think of is `Kate Ellis really is a lovely looking girl, isn't she ...'

In other news, were Brad Norrington and Steven Smith separated at birth?

Meanwhile back at the ranch ... Robb is complaining about `industrial bureaucrats from the top end of town' setting industrial agreements. Eeeexcuse me. AHAAAAHAAAAAAAHhhhhhhhh AAAAAAAHHHAHAAA. Look, I'M SORRY. Even Norrington is smothering a giggle. It's just not washing! This is the biggest load of spin cycle shit I've ever heard! The unions `stick their nose in' and `frustrate' attempts to improve the balance between work and family? As Dodson says, the whole system is based on employers being `good guys' - but in fact, it goes beyond that. Legally, the corporation is beholden to return money to shareholders, no more no less. This sole purpose was based on the legal precedent of Dodge vs Ford. Is even the most kind hearted boss going to give his or her employee a break if it compromises their legal obligation to make a profit? Sorry - no.

To put myself in the position of a humble worker at say, Trendy Healthy Minimum Wage Juices, would I be convinced by everything I just heard? Uh, no. I think I'd just be more confused ...

(I won't blog John North of the Law Council of Australia's very worthy interview following, except to heartily endorse his description of the proposed anti-terror laws as `hasty and ill-thought out' and to heartily giggle at his description of the fact that journalists could potentially be jailed under the laws as `tantalizing'. Interesting also his statement that it is only lawyers that are attempting to hold their governments to account in regards such legislation. Read the rest at http//:www.ten.com.au/meetthepress)