Talk:WorkChoices/Archive 1

Untitled

I believe WorkChoices should have its own page. It is specific enough on its own and could drag on in a more generic debate about the IR changes 10:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC) dankru

I think that this article and the one on current IR reform in Australia should be merged - they refer to the same thing; Work Choices is simply the name the Government has given to its reforms.

Also - interestingly enough, while earlier documents referred to it as WorkChoices, the explanatory memorandum to the Bill refers to it as "Work Choices" (No italics; two words). The article should be updated to reflect that. Mistertim 03:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Am merging. Ben Aveling 04:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Underpaid? You can't say anything about it!

I learnt the hard way recently, that if your underpaid, Workchoices provides NO PROTECTION if you question this with your employer. You can be sacked, and there is no recourse. This does not fall under 'unlawful' protection (despite my local liberal MP assuring me that was the case mind you!)

I dunno, perhaps the article needs to make it more obvious just how fewer protections now exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.252.86 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Labor IR Policy?

The article says unfair dismissal would apply to business with 10 or more employees. I think you'll find it's all business, with a time restriction ie... trial period) being longer on business with under 10 employees (12months VS 6 months)

Bias?

I think it is pretty lame to accuse the article of bias but not make any effort to either rectify the article OR at least say something in discussion. If you want to pass judgement either in discussion or make edits, then by all means do so. But do not tag this article and not even bother to explain why. So either do something or I will remove that tag.

Also the atricle is still to be finished.Dankru 22:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Before we get all hot under the collar, I should note that I'm a unionist and an ex-union employee, and this article strikes me as being unfavourable towards the laws (even though I agree personally with everything that it says). Removing bias may in some cases require removing much text, so this is why I'm reluctant to do it.

No article on Wikipedia is ever finished. Slac speak up! 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noted your profile with regards to your background.Dankru 09:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I too think it is bias... the way the first paragraph paints it and the introduction of the bill in to parliament mentions nothing of the fact they only received the bill less than an hour before the sitting of parliament, and for labor to have "claimed" they hadn't received enough copies? It was blatently obvious - and I haven't read on from there yet. I could do some updates but no doubt the federal government has drones that will nibble away at the edits. /tin-foil hat Timeshift 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) I've attempted to indicate that the Australian Labour Movement considers the legislation "extreme", and all the edits, including footnoted, referenced edits keep getting deleted - OK, I'm not an experienced contributor, I'm just trying to show another POV - so I think it is biased (Maxirminsul 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Having the article itself reflect a bias, as opposed to attributing that viewpoint to a specific individual/source, is biased editing. Slac speak up! 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word extreme in relation to the legislation formerly known as WorkChoices is in the public domain, and yet the article seems to fail to mention that - but thanks for the pointers Maxirminsul 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I may have confused you a bit by pointing you to Wikipedia:Cite sources, since that talks about the attribution of both direct and indirect quotations/paraphrases. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "extreme" should be used to describe the laws because members of the community have been using that. In this case, it's properly a paraphrase or a summary of a viewpoint - and the policy on Wikipedia is that every viewpoint needs an attribution. Therefore we ourselves cannot use this encyclopedia to call the laws extreme, but we can and should use it to cite the notable opinions of notable people that the laws are extreme. Slac speak up! 05:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Extreme was started by Labor as one of the many ways to counter WorkChoices. It is not a term that can be used for educational purposes to describe any laws, as extreme is a perception. As for "extreme" being in the public domain so can be used here, that's simply fairy floss rubbish. (PS: I vote Labor). Timeshift 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Spend

New South Wales acting Premier John Watkins says he was horrified to learn the Federal Government plans to spend $12 million over the next three weeks on an advertising campaign to sell the package.

"It's an obscene figure. They're out there trying to convince Australian workers that this package is something other than it really is which is a vicious attack on working standards and they're spending taxpayers' money to do it. It's an obscene waste of money," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1477956.htm

"The government is shamelessly spending $100 million of taxpayers' money on advertising it, so we're entitled to have the legislation here today," Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has told parliament.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/PM-lying-about-need-for-IR-change-ALP/2005/10/10/1128796446197.html

"think about that $100 million. It comes on top of more than $900 million spent so far by this Government on advertising - over $1 billion."

http://www.alp.org.au/media/1005/pciriiloo100.php

BARRIE CASSIDY: To our program guest now, the Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews. This week the Government, on your behalf, spent close to $15 million advertising its industrial relations changes. That's more than most large companies spend in a year. Here's one of those ads.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2005/s1488537.htm

I agree the actual budget isn't public, I suspect there probably isn't so much a fixed budget as a commitment to spend whatever it takes.

It's clearly in the 10's of millions. I heard on the radio but cannot find an advertising executive estimating the amount spent so far, based on the air-time etc to date. It was a lot.

But we can't just say that without a quote or a reference.

Maybe put back the "up to $100 M" section with a reference to Beazley?

I'd like to see it in there somewhere, but it doesn't feel right where it is. It's too detailed for an introduction.

Maybe this is an argument to merge.

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Definitely support WorkChoices being merged into this article. El T 14:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am all in support of a merger. Let it be. Terjepetersen 12:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, merge the two.Georgeslegloupier 00:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to merge into workchoices as it is a shorter and more memorable article name. Xtra 12:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point to raise, what do people think, which is the more appropriate name, "WorkChoices" or "2005 Australian industrial relations law reform"? "WorkChoices" is more concise, but on the other hand the issue was being prepared, debated, discussed and protested on well before the IR reform was called "WorkChoices". I favour the longer name mainly for this reason. Also, "WorkChoices" sounds a bit too Orwellian for my liking to be the name of the article, but others might think differently. Georgeslegloupier 02:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait until the final bill comes out, then adopt the name of the bill instead. --Kelvin 23:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Even when the bill comes out, there will be a lot more to the reform than the specific piece of legislation. And WorkChoices is clearly partisan. The phrase being used all over the place (news, conversation, etc.) is "IR reform", not "WorkChoices". I would suggest that this article should have been entitled 2005 Australian industrial relations reform, not what it currently is. El T 02:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "[IR] law reform" kind of implies that the changes are good and required, hence "[IR] reform" is more neutral? Just wondering.

As for waiting for the bill to come out, then naming the article after that bill, this could be an option but I'm not sure how long it will be before the Bill is passed/introduced in parliament, could be at least a month(?) yet(can anyone verify this?), and why wait that long, we can merge them under this name(with or without "law", depending on what people think about El T's suggestion). Georgeslegloupier 02:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that '[IR] law reform' kind of implies that the changes are good and required, hence '[IR] reform' is more neutral? Just wondering."

No. The reason is that "IR law reform" is about rewriting legislation (or regulations, etc.). This policy is about the reform of IR itself - that is, "IR reform". Not all of it is being accomplished just through legislative change, and even if it were, it is the effect on IR that is important and encyclopaedic, not the legislative change itself. El T 09:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The article WorkChoices is specifically about the government legislation and the story surrounding it. I hate the title as well as it is lies and a crock of BS. However, the title is so because it is what the Government called it. I think the title would be more fairly called 'NoChoices'.Dankru 12:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be called by either the name of the bill or the package. Is it called the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill 2005? The article's name should incorporate the word Australian as per the example of Australian Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005. I agree the article on WorkChoices should be merged with 2005 Australian industrial relations law reform. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am completely against the IR changes, but I'm really not too keen on that photo being at the top of the article as I think it does give a decidedly partisan impression. Georgeslegloupier 01:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

logo

we should get a "Work Choices" logo to put on the page. Xtra 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's a much better idea putting the photo in the "Opposition to the changes" section. Am looking for "WorkChoices" logo now. Georgeslegloupier 01:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Is government-published material (ie logos) in the public domain in Australia? I can find a picture of the "workchoices" booklet on the website, but I can't find an uploadable logo. Georgeslegloupier 02:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's under Crown Copyright.JSIN 11:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Approval of Advertisements

Xtra, could you kindly direct me to the section in the court record that affirms your claim the appropriation was approved? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If nothing says that the appropriation was "approved" by parliament, perhaps it could be changed to "found that the expenditure was lawful". Georgeslegloupier 02:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, while it looks like the challenge was unsuccesful, the reason it was unsuccessful was not because the court found the expenditure was approved by parliament or lawful but because it found that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter[1]: "The court found it was not appropriate to judge whether the use of taxpayers' money was unlawful." I suggest putting something like "the court rejected the legal challenge on jurisdictional grounds".Georgeslegloupier 02:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The court found it was not appropriate to judge whether the use of taxpayers' money was unlawful - yes to an extent, but the majority did say that it was authorised. I will try to find the actuall comments. Xtra 02:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, that would be your interpretation, wouldn't it?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

GUMMOW, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

at 102 "The issues presented by this Special Case turn upon interpretation of an appropriation law of the Commonwealth rather than upon any alleged invalidity of that law"

at 107 "The plaintiffs' contentions were founded upon a construction of the relevant Act (the Appropriation Act (No 1) 2005-2006 (Cth)) that should not be accepted."

at 199 "That examination reveals that the premise from which the plaintiffs' arguments proceeded is flawed. On its true construction the Act does not bear the meaning asserted by the plaintiffs."

at 128 "The contrast to be drawn between s 7(2) and s 8(2) reveals no textual basis to support the plaintiffs' submission. Rather, the text of these provisions requires the conclusion that the several amounts of Departmental Outputs which are identified against particular outcomes, and together make up the departmental item, are not tied to expenditure for the purpose of achieving any of the nominated outcomes."

The question of the purpose of the money was only disputed by the ACTU, because they disputed the outcomes which would be achieved. They said that the outcome of "higher productivety, higher pay" would not result from the reforms / ads. But that is realy a matter of ideology rather than fact. Xtra 04:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

---

From the page Xtra referenced earlier:

The questions and answers

110 The parties joined in stating questions of law in the form of a Special Case for the opinion of the Full Court[43]. For that purpose they agreed certain facts. The questions were:

"(1) Do the Plaintiffs, or either of them, have standing to seek the relief sought in the Statement of Claim in the Further Amended Writ of Summons?

(2) If yes to (1), is the withdrawal of money from the Treasury of the Commonwealth to pay for the Government's Advertisements authorised by the Departmental Appropriation?

(3) If no to (2), have the Plaintiffs established a basis for any, and if so which, of the relief sought in the Amended Statement of Claim?

(4) If yes to (3), should any such relief be refused on discretionary grounds?

(5) Who should pay the costs of the proceedings?"

111 It is unnecessary to answer the first question (about standing). It is inappropriate to answer the second question (which asks, in general terms not connected to the particular arguments advanced in this matter, whether the withdrawal of money from the Treasury is authorised by the departmental appropriation). Question 3 should be answered: "The Plaintiffs have not established a basis for any of the relief sought in the Amended Statement of Claim or the alternative relief foreshadowed at the hearing of the Special Case, namely, declarations concerning payments to meet expenses incurred by the Commonwealth under contracts and arrangements for and in relation to certain past advertisements". It is unnecessary to answer question 4 (which was predicated upon an affirmative answer to question 3). Question 5 (about costs) should be answered: "The Plaintiffs."

The justification then follows. I won't repeat it here because it gets pretty heavy.

My handwave summary is 'contrary to the claims of the ACTU, government budgets are indicative only and the government can swap out one line item and swap in another, so long as it serve the same purpose, and so long as the total budget doesn't exceed the original budget.'

So the high court dodged question 2, on the grounds that there is no need to specify, and moved straight on to question 3.

The dissenting judge's report is pretty strong, but I don't think we need to go into it here.

Maybe change

"on the grounds that it was not approved by Parliament. However, on September 29, the High Court found that it was approved"

To

"on the grounds that it was not specifically approved by Parliament. However, on September 29, the High Court found that specific approval was not necessary and that the expenditure was lawful"

Another technicallity: Only $20M of the projected spend was challenged, though the ruling almost certainly covers the lot.

Regards, Ben Aveling 04:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

at 163.5 "Therefore it does not matter whether any part of the $140,131,000 (or the $1,447,552,000) is spent otherwise than on activities leading to higher productivity or higher pay workplaces (or activities forming part of either of the other two outcomes), so long as it is "departmental expenditure"[92]."

They did not say that the money was used for another purpose. They just said that it wouldn't matter if it was. Xtra 05:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Um. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me. Ben Aveling 05:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can find the majority opinion saying that the expenditure was not specifically approved, the yes. If not, then no. The bit that I read just said that it would not matter either way. I suspect that the High Court would not have wanted to go into the politics of the matter. Xtra 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My reading is that they said it didn't matter, so they declined to say if it was approved or not.

Which is why I suggested: "on the grounds that it was not specifically approved by Parliament. However, on September 29, the High Court found that specific approval was not necessary and that the expenditure was lawful"

But you're right, lawful is the wrong word. They didn't find that it was lawful, just that it wasn't unlawful on the grounds suggested by the ACTU.

Maybe: "on the grounds that it was not specifically approved by Parliament. However, on September 29, the High Court found that specific approval was irrelevant"

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is approved then it follows that it is lawful. - at 163 "The question posed by the plaintiffs is whether expenditure on advertising the Government's reform package falls within the figure of $140,131,000 appearing in that part of Sched 1 to the Appropriation Act (No 1) 2005-2006 which relates to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. That figure is in the "Departmental Outputs" column against Outcome 2 - "Higher productivity, higher pay workplaces". The answer is in the affirmative" Xtra 05:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The Court said that that it was approved even if if was not for the specific purpose mentioned, but the Court did not say that it was not for the specific purpose mentioned Xtra 05:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Xtra,

That does not say that the advertising is specifically approved, it says that the expenditure is approved.

The court found that the advertising does not need to be specifically approved, so it was irrelevant for them to even consider whether or not it was.

Nor did they say that it was lawful, just that it was not unlawful on the grounds suggested. That's almost but not quite the same as saying it was lawful; just as finding a defendant not-guilty is almost but not exactly the same as finding them innocent.

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But that means nothing. "Not unlawful on these grounds" can imply no further inference. It just means that the case is not proved. Just because something (being a specific use of money within a department) is not specifically referred to in the appropriation, does not mean that it is not approved. That is what the court was saying. Xtra 06:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But "the High Court found that it was approved" implies that they found that it specifically was approved. It's the difference between your wife telling you to buy 'a fish' vs her telling you to buy 'that fish'. The approval was general, not specific, and she can still complain if you bring home the wrong fish.

The original claim was that to be approved, the spending needed to be specifically approved, and the court's response was "no it doesn't".

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But it did not say that in this case it was not. It just said that it did not have to be. I repeat the words of the court "The question posed by the plaintiffs is whether expenditure on advertising the Government's reform package falls within [the appropriation]... The answer is in the affirmative". Xtra 07:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. I've tried to put all that into a lot less words than we've just spent on it. Your review welcomed.

PS I've removed this link, only because it's so temporary: (hansard p1)

Good link otherwise.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

good point, i'll get the permanent link. Xtra 08:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for fixing the wording on the second phase. Much nicer. Ben Aveling 08:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

None of this discussion has captured the essence of the case very well. To put it as simply as possible, the case hinged on a previously unanswered question of how specific an appropriation Act has to be when it's not just dealing with the general running expenses of the country, and how specific this one actually was. It's established law that the government cannot appropriate money without stating their purpose for spending it, and every appropriation has to pass through both houses of Parliament. The majority judgment was very unusual in that it rejected the assertions of both parties and decided independently on a completely different interpretation. The Act with which the government appropriated the money had stated something along the lines of "higher wages, higher productivity, higher workforce participation" as an objective toward which a certain sum of money would be spent. The government argued that the advertising fell under this. The Shadow A-G and ACTU President argued that it did not, and that if public money is going to be spent on promoting new and controversial partisan legislation then that needs to be made clear in the appropriation Act so that the Parliament knows what it is that they're actually approving (otherwise what is the point in having them approve it?). Both parties took it for granted that spending had to relate to the Objectives in the Act, they just disagreed as to whether the advertising related closely enough to them. The majority judges, instead, held that spending did not have to hold at all to the Objective in any case, as long as the money was spent by the relevent department in some way. This was a decision that neither party expected and is very reasonably criticised in Kirby J's dissent and identified for what it was - a sloppy attempt to dodge the constitutional question, which in effect renders one of the safeguards of the Constitution useless. The current High Court is notorious for its absolute hands-off approach to any question that has political implications. Oh, and there's no reason why the advertising would not be lawful, assuming that the appropriation for it was; this was specifically mentioned in the case too. Daniel 10:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Post merge clean up.

" replace the separate state and federal systems"

The commentary I've read says that it doesn't replace the existing federal system so much as layer a new system on top, which will over time erode the existing system. (white ant has been used)

"putting basic workplace conditions into legislation"

Awards already force of law, so is replacing 10's of conditions with five: minimum hourly pay; personal/carer's leave; two weeks annual leave; unpaid parental leave; 38 hour wk (strictly max of 1900 hours/year).

"The Labor Party claimed that the Government did not provide enough copies of the Bill to"

There wasn't any doubt about this, the only question is, conspiracy or cock-up.

"In response to the success of the ACTU campaign,"

The govt always expected a campaign, but they didn't expect it to have the impact it has.

" which eventually swayed a then less skeptical public about the need for taxation reform."

Unsubstantiated claim.

"Employees of larger businesses will not be protected if they are dismissed for 'operational' reasons."

Impact is not just on small and medium companies.

"needed to be specifically approved"

As discussed earlier.

Shuffled links. Moved the legislation above the propaganda for the legislation.

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to change some back:

a) there are separate state and federal systems

b) the labor party did claim there were not enough. is there a difinitive proof that there were not actually enough?

and some minor tweaks Xtra 23:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

labor definitely had copies of the Bill Xtra 23:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do. I'm a big fan of constructive disagreement.

Re: b) we're both half right

"Mr Smith argued the Government was in breach of standing orders that state that copies of the bill must be available.

Copies of the bill immediately began to be handed out to Labor and independent MPs by parliamentary staff." [2]

ie. Labor had some copies, but not as many as they should have.

Re: a) my point is that the current federal system is not being replaced - it will be allowed to continue and slowly die. Actually, that's probably true of the state systems as well.

Regards, Ben Aveling 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

by the way, i believe that the "operational reasons" for large companies need to be approved by the industrial relations commission. Xtra 00:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be stunned if it did. Maybe you can appeal to the IRC if you get operationed on. I'm sure it'll be easy to check the new legislation - it's only 1250 pages... :-[

And I confess, I'm now confused if the ALP was initally given any copies at all.

The press are using the expressions "not all members" and "not a copy". Not happy.

I guess we could safely say "claim no copies" or "not provided with enough". But I'd rather know which it was.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

They did have copies. They just said they did not have enough. Enough meaning one copy for every ALP member. Xtra 02:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

See howard's response on p54 [3]. You can appeal and then the employer must prove it was "operational". Xtra 02:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. How hard will that be?

Hansard [4] has Wilson Tuckey saying that there were no copies.

He thinks Smith snuck all 60 copies into a back pocket.

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/11/03-1458-3286.html

In one of those “cock up or conspiracy” moments that seem to thrive in the public sector, non-Government members were denied copies of the legislation. Even after $55 million in ads, no-one really knew what the fine print contained. IR shadow Stephen Smith claimed this breached standing orders, but Hawker ruled against him. Point number two.

The opposition was told the legislation was available online. Sure. They could tie up their printers for a couple of hours – and collate a couple of kilos of paper. Point number three.

Labor ruled dissent from the Speaker's ruling. Copies of the legislation began to appear.

So during the first reading, none. Plenty for the second reading, but only after the dissent ruling.

Of course, the only reason 1/2 an hour matters is because this legeslation is being rushed. A real conservative government would takes months or more over something this big.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the whole "IR reform was rushed" argument. It's a blatent lie. "This legislation has been debated for more than 23 hours in total, with 88 members having spoken on the Bill. It is one of the longest debates recorded in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament." Cheers.

Misc Quotes

"As an accountant I would be able to reorganise the affairs of a company that had 10,000 employees so that they had five service trusts each with 100 employees and we're talking about full-time and part-time employees," [5]

Morris Iemma says the state will argue the federal workplace relations legislation is unfair and unconstitutional. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1497409.htm

Actually, here's a better one.

"We've got legal advice that there's grounds here to challenge and we will challenge." http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1497296.htm

And just in case overload has not been reached...

"two days of fiery debate in federal parliament over the legislation has seen 18 Labor MPs and one Liberal backbencher ejected from the House of Representatives"

"the past practice of unions highlighting unfair Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) will now result in a jail sentence, the union movement says.

Unions NSW secretary John Robertson said he had received legal advice that section 83B would provide for the jailing of people who disclose the parties to an AWA."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/High-Court-challenge-over-IR-changes/2005/11/03/1130823339858.html

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Australian Industry Group

Can someone point me to a link showing that the Australian Industry Group has a public position supporting these changes, as we claim?

They're certainly interested in IR. They've had Greg Combet give them a talk on the changes. [6]

And they've taken positions before, but not always in favour of the govt.

The Senate inquiry is investigating four proposed amendments to the Workplace Relations Act, including the government's Better Bargaining Bill, and legislation to simplify federal awards. ... a major Australian employer group (AIG) has joined the union movement in attacking government plans to further strip back award provisions.[7]

This is highlighted in a late submission to the Commission from the Australian Industry Group which expresses concern that the Commission should contemplate removing or changing 'employment' exemptions from the Trade Practice Act [s51(2)(a)]. AIG claims that these exemptions are, 'the very foundations upon which Australia's industrial relations system is built'.[8]

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Published today, the IAG sub'n to the senate enquiry

• http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub172.pdf

Broadly speaking, they're in favour, but they'd like a lot of changes.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Day of protest

I updated the estimate for numbers attending the Day of Protest on 15 November from 250,000 to 500,000, and attributed this estimate to the ACTU. A reference for this can be found on the ACTU website.--Takver 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

150,000 melbourne [9] 65,000 queensland [10] 30,000 sydney [11] Tasmania 9,500 [12] Adelaide 15,000 police estimate [13] NT 2,500 [14] Perth 20,000 [15]

Adding that up equals 292,000 not 500,000. Xtra 01:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Xtra,

Good to have you back. It was starting to get quiet with everyone agreeing with each other.  ;-)

Don't forget that there were 100's of smaller meetings. And don't forget that police estimates tend to be low, while union estimates tend to be high. So probably closer to 400,000 than to either 300,000 or 500,000.

And cop this:

• The federal government warned its workforce of 120,000 not to attend the rallies, circulating memos that public servants would be breaking the law even if they take a day of annual leave to protest.[16]

You can't even protest on your own time.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The ACTU predicted 500,000 before the event, but I don't think they have claimed 500,000 since the event. Note that I have created Australian industrial relations legislation national day of protest, 2005, which is where this topic should be pursued. Adam 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Adam for creating that page. But according to Ms Burrow on the day (3.30pm AEST - 12.30pm in the West) up to 546,000 people attended protest events Australian wide. This is a union estimate (post event). See Talk:Australian_industrial_relations_legislation_national_day_of_protest,_2005 for further discussion.--Takver 03:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oi Group

I removed the following insertion into the lead para:

Even though the media portrays the juxtaposed positions of employers in support and unions agains the changes, other organisations such as The Oi Group who provide industrial and employment law support to companies not affiliated with the industry groups report extraordinary high levels of increased membership as companies contemplate the changes.

Firstly, I'm not convinced as to the general notability of the Oi Group, and in particular mentioning it in the opening seems a little contrived. Secondly, the second clause does not follow from the first- how does a reported increased interest from employers (and flow-on membership benefits to employer advocates like this one) about the changes, an interest which might readily be expected, alter or give counterpoint to the perception that employers are mostly for the changes, and unions against? --cjllw | TALK 00:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment CJLL Wright - I am not sure that it is appropriate that you simply remove additions such as ours without first discussing - Let me try to convince you... The AIG have 10,000 members across the east-coast of Australia - whilst you might not personally know of our notability The Oi Group does support 5862 employer organisation across all of Australia. Indeed The Oi Group is only one of two organisations that provide across Australia coverage to Employers. It may not suit you that our comment is in the lead para but from our perspective the article at this time provides a simple polarised view of employer groups versus union groups when this is simply not the case. Thus whilst you might not agree with the logic of our input the reality is that employer interest has been sparked because employers are concerned about the changes - if they were not they would wait for WorkChoices to be enacted and then move along happily. Finally if you had asked or gone to our web-page you would see that we offer our support for free and indeed most employers join up for free - there are no monetary flow on benefits to our advocacy. Please return as to where you think we should put the fact of employer concern being reflected towards our organisation - but in our view that should be in the lead para right so that it provides the middle ground which the entry does not currently do. VirtualSteve

There might be room in the intro for a short sentance discussing the middle ground. There is certainly room in the section 'Debate and reaction' for a discussion of how companies are reacting to the legislation., so long as it address CJLL's concerns as above. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, thanks for your prompt explanation; rather than simply delete, I followed what I believe to be standard and courteous practice by temporarily moving the passage in question to the talk page, where its merits or otherwise can be openly discussed and some consensus reached- and so here we are. I remain unclear on several points, however; perhaps you can assist:

1. Leaving aside for the moment whether the Oi Group itself warrants explicit mention at this point, there seem to be two distinct ideas struggling in that sentence: (a)that the dichotomy of employers being slavishly for, and unions implaccably against, the changes is an over-simplification, and (b)employers & businesses are displaying heightened levels of interest/concern about the changes and are seeking further information about their likely effects. At least, that is how it read to me, and I do not see how (b) --the readily-understandable desire of employers to stay abreast of the changes-- is a demonstration of (a). Now, re-reading the sentence and in light of your discussion above, perhaps the intended meaning is not merely that employers are concerned (interested) in what the changes will entail, but that at least some of them are concerned (worried or anxious) about the possible impacts. If this is so, then I would agree that this is worthy of mention if it can be appropriately cited- that some employer groups are concerned or worried about aspects of the Bill, or even are not in favour of some of it. But is that what you meant? And, are you saying that the Oi Group holds up some criticism of the changes, or takes some "middle ground" position itself? From what I have been able to gather, the group's primary function is a employer advocacy, and presumably provides advice and service to its clients whatever the form of IR legislation.
2. As to the notability of the group itself, I confess I had not heard of it before now. However, before moving the passage and making my previous comments, I did indeed search around for details of this group, including perusing the Oi Group wikipedia article you recently created and its external website (you say "our", so one assumes you are directly associated with it in some way). However most of the website is restricted to members-only login, and consequently of little use to non-members; maybe actual "membership" is free as you say but to get it seems to require purchase of one of your publications before joining, and the group presumably charges appropriate subsequent fees for advice and advocacy services. Beyond that website, the only other references to the group I could locate were either in on-line business directory listings, or mentions in the AIRC hearing documents and transcripts where OI (if this is the same Oi) has represented employer clients in a few cases. I was diligent but not exhaustive in my search- are there other independent mentions, citations, press etc? You'll appreciate that there are hundreds of thousands of businesses of all varieties in AU alone, but not all warrant coverage in an encyclopaedia, even one as open-ended as this one. Notability is a notoriously difficult and even subjective thing to define, but claims to it need to be supported at least- including particularly from outside of the business/organisation itself.
3. Re the Oi Group article itself- at present, it reads (IMO) a little more like an advert or brochure, than an independent, "encyclopaedic"-style article. If you refer to what wikipedia is not, in particular section 1.4, wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion. There's nothing to stop someone writing about a topic or entity they are personally involved with, but (particularly in such cases) it needs to be as objective as possible. Phrases like "Membership is instant and is easily available through its website" don't sound particularly neutral in this regard, and information such as describing the contents of its website is not necessarily appropriate. With a bit of a rewrite (I see it has been updated a little while ago), it could be improved. To be frank I had contemplated earlier listing it for possible deletion on this basis (see WP:AFD for this process), but will see a little longer. In the end, it will not be my view but whatever general consensus is reached.

As for this present article on the WorkChoice changes, I think Ben's suggestions above are sensible- any detailed discussion on how employers (and unions, and anyone else) are reacting can go in the appropriate section. The rest can await any further input you or anyone else may have. I'd be particularly interested in clarification regarding Oi's stance re these changes, if any.--cjllw | TALK 07:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your new comments CJLLW - Fair enough you seem to want to police these things fairly loquatiously - so it makes it hard to respond briefly but here goes. You have most of my gist in the comment you note above "that at least some of them (employers) are concerned (worried or anxious) about the possible impacts of the legislation". Perhaps I have not met your particular standards on how to phrase that - but my point (and you seem to be agreeing as does Ben) is that employers are not just trying to stay abreast of information, they can get that anywhere but in fact they are not all happy and content with legislation that purports to support them. Indeed many employers are preparing for the turmoil this legislation is likely to create in the short to medium term (loading their guns if you like). Preparation by employers in such a way as what our organisation is experiencing does not reflect employers in support of legislation that the current article seems to suggest they support because they generally think will assist them. I wanted to get that view - the neutral view and not the polarised for and against view into the Industrial Relations article.

To your second point regarding Oi's entry - look again at The Oi Group website you DO NOT have to buy anything to get support - the big circled F stands for FREE and says so both in words and by audio. Click on the icon if you do not believe this to be true - and indeed if you are an employer you can be a member without any charge whatsoever.

That said I can accept you have a concerned view of how the page looks to you at this time and you are quite correct that we (and others it seems) are in the process of editing that document. We certainly do not want it to be an advert but Oi is a free public service to employers. We will no doubt change our entry even more over the next few weeks. HOWEVER we note for example that the AIG has a page which reflects their organisation somewhat. Their organisation charges all members to be members. Their page states that it is currently only a "stub" and seeks further input. In our case we did not want to be a "stub" so our intention was and is to provide information about The Oi Group. Sorry CJLLW but just because you haven't heard of it does not mean it doesn't exist - and that it has a strong following of support - and that it represents a neutral view of employers.

Anyway I do not want to offend you, the rules, or any sensitivities. It does seem that at least one person has gone to the page and added links in a very useful way because he could see that it was a useful page. Please let me know what you personally require to satisfy you more as to the Oi page and when I come back from 10 days on assignment in Europe I will adjust as much as I can to your specifications. VirtualSteve | TALK 22.10, 17 November 2005

Hi VirtualSteve,

• Re the Oi Group article: I am not disputing that the organisation exists. However, as far as any information regarding it on Wikipedia is concerned, that information ought to be independently verifiable. What would help is if you or someone else were able to supply some other references, if they are available. Your recent rewrite has improved it, but mentioning (for example) four times in the text that membership is free is still promotional-sounding. Note also that the article on AIG is no more "their" article, than the Oi Group article is "yours", nor does any article on a person or organisation "belong" to that person or organisation. These are wikipedia's articles, no-one else's. Any editor can come along and make changes to the article. The articles are not there for the benefit of their subject, but for the benefit of the reader. Wikipedia is not affiliated with or an endorser of any service, product or company, which is why the community at large (not just me) "polices" these matters. Why it should want to do so is hopefully self-evident.
• Re this present Australian industrial relations legislation, 2005 article: if indeed there are, as can readily be believed, employers/businesses who have expressed reservations or criticism of these changes, then as I earlier stated I for one would support that fact being mentioned in the article. But again, such information needs to be appropriately referenced. Would you for example know of any such employer/business which has gone on the record in saying so? Such mentions would be good to include. Or even, has Oi Group issued any public statement to that effect, one which is accessible? --cjllw | TALK 03:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional Challange

I do not believe that Victoria has the standing to challange these laws, as Victoria gave up their industrial relations power to the Commonwealth years ago. Any comments? Xtra 04:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The constitutional litigation in the high court will be an argument about the reach of the corporations power. The distribution of powers in the federal compact is something about which each of the component states have a critical interest. Standing is not an issue. --SilasM 15:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Victoria referred its IR powers to the Commonwealth in 1996 by legislation. If it desired, it could challege the constitutional validity of these laws, as statute in Victoria would not change anything. Victoria could even repeal its IR legislation so that it regains control of IR.JSIN 11:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparison with Master and Servant Act

Comparisons have been made between this legislation and Master and Servant Law from the nineteenth century. References include The Age Commentator Kenneth Davidson, Ian West in the NSW Legislative Council, and a May 2005 speech PDF by Doug Cameron, National Secretary of the AMWU.

I personally believe such claims to be spurious and propoganderistic. But, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions. Xtra 11:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if spurious is the correct definition but I agree that there has not been a direct comparison made. There is nothing spurious about Master-Servant Law as it was the law or basis of the law long before the 1820's and still is the framework that surrounds the employer/employee relationship. The fact that their is a boss (master) and worker (servant) is undeniable. What is different is that the worker (employee) can refuse to work for a boss (employer) - and he or she is certainly not subject to the type penalty of 50 lashes that the 'propoganderistic' comment suggested by Doug Cameron reflects. Part of that law is that the boss does have the right (and should have) to hire and fire. That does not mean the boss should be able to do that without recourse to the principle of 'fairness' and (currently) prior to WorkChoices a boss had to pass the test of Sheldon J, in 'Loty's case' of such a firing not being harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The comments then of the new WorkChoices being like the Master-Servant law of the early nineteenth century by The Age Commentator Kenneth Davidson are simply comments that have no factual link. By this I mean that just comparing WorkChoices to Master-Servant in off the cuff comments, by unqualified reference or silly propoganda does not show that it is comparative to that law. We need to see more in-depth debate as to why the two are similar. VirtualSteve 09:15, December 1, 2005

I would suggest, Steve, that it is much like comparing the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 with the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950. Schedules are alike in motivation and intention on the whole rather than specifically. Rather than suggesting the Master and Servant Act is similar due to chunks copied from it and parts borrowed, it is similar because it is so strongly in favour of the employer in workplace relations. That Act claimed to be a benefit to employees also, but that could hardly be true. Comparison of these Acts has taken place, meaning it belongs here in the article, but on top of that I believe the comparison is justified even if not a comparison based on immediate similarity in the eyes of any simpleton, but rather a comparison of the broader issues arising. Guest 09:57, March 27, 2006

Future of Awards

I'm relucant to write in the article proper as I don't think I can be impartial (I'm a trade union delegate) however I feel the article should mention that after the changes new awards cannot be made and existing awards cannot be altered essetially meaning that all awards will be forced into being obsolete and will cease to exist altogether. See reference from Mallesons Stephen Jaques Law Firm below:

"Awards cannot be varied (other than in the rationalisation process) and will, therefore, be “frozen” as at the commencement of WorkChoices. No new awards will be made. Over time, awards will become obsolete. As a result, employees will be forced to enter into workplace agreements to bring about a change in terms and conditions of employment. This, in conjunction with the ease with which new workplace agreements may be made and the fact that once such agreements have been made the employee will effectively be removed from the award system, should provide employers with a substantial opportunity to bring about significant workplace change and flexibility."Mallesons Stephen Jaques --Zig c 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

PM's description

I want to add the PM's description of Labors' and the Unions' tactics from http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18652198-29277,00.html but don't know how to use the referencing system in the article. Xtra 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The rhetoric of either side is so loaded with bias that there is no encyclopedic reason to cite it as a source unless you are analysing the rhetoric itself. - 203.166.252.95 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for move

I think the new title is more fitting, since it is called "workplace relations reforms" by bipartisan sites such as this [17]. In addition, the Act is called Workplace Relations Act 1996. The use of "workplace" is also self-explanatory. I've changed the year to 2006, as the bulk of the Act was proclaimed and commenced in 2006, hence it is 2006 when the reforms are actually implemented. JSIN 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Workplace Relations is a Howard Government PR term, and still has only limited currency in the media and public. Remember that is only at a federal level that the term is used and that the states each continue use of industrial relations. Moreover, the APH website is not bipartisan. While I do agree the previous title was defecient so is this new one. The use of the word "reform" is doubtlessly contentious, as is shown below. I originally argued against WorkChoices as the title, but it would seem to now to be the most appropriate term. I've thus renamed the article.--cj | talk 04:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of word "reform"

The word "reform" suggests a positive spin to the changes. The NPOV word "changes" should be used instead, as it's neutral and has no negative or positive connotation.Mrlefty 00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A reform is an overhaul, and that's what this is. Xtra 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, an overhaul is an overhaul; the word "reform" has positive connotations. Mrlefty 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved to WorkChoices already, so "reform" is no longer part of the title. JSIN 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To me "reform" connotes a righteous imposition, "change" suggests a natural course of events and "choices" connotes emancipation. None of these seem particularly neutral, so having the article title the same as the official name de jure is probably fairest. I think though that it would be fascinating to have a history section on the evolving naming of the package as it was (and is) communicated to voters. DLeonard 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

union overhaul

I would like to see more articles on the restructure of the unions. Targeting solution for the demographic time-bomb in the work place. Here is something I whipped together i will still like to enter comparisons and other facts and figures. Holger I would like your response to bench marking jobs and concerns you might have, seeing that you have been so involved in the union articles .

Currently the union legislation in Australia has been changed and many people are scared about the uncertainty of their jobs and livelihood. I am currently working on a project that could take a lot of strain and uncertainty. Australia needs to become more transparent.

This is partly achievable by forecasting when workers skills need updating, for example when a job becomes more demanding or when new technology will make current employees competencies redundant. By allowing time for adequate, government subsidised, training the workforce will have the capacity to grow whilst becoming united in strength and versatility. Keeping the workforce one step ahead is essential for triumphing over future adversities all the while being competitive in a global economy.

This system occurs in South Africa. By continuously educating people in jobs they are able to move higher up, creating a circular movement for the up and coming or in Australians case immigrants whilst some retire. With the aging population this could be very beneficial however the process is not currently transparent hence corruption in some sectors is almost a guarantee.

The government is essentially moving away from rewarding complacency, and with less regulation in the unions potential investors are less likely to be intimidated in entering into the market. These changes have create more incentives for employees with the capabilities to take the financial risk in creating a their own business with the benefits out waying the negatives. Whilst in the transitional period many people might feel the adverse effects of these new legislations. The best answer lies in bench-marking every job individually. Those of you who are reading this might think that it is a daunting task and I welcome any concerns or questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldie (talk • contribs) Xtra 10:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Senator Minchin

Is it worth adding the comments into this article made by Senator Nick Minchin in private to the H.R. Nichols society about taking a mandate to the next election for further Industrial Relations changes. It was front line news a while ago. Kyle sb 12:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

To those people who voted to have this article moved to its other title (cannot remember name cause it was so long) I'd just like to say you're a bunch of idiots. The title was always going to be out of date once 2006 came around. It should always have stayed as WorkChoices. Dankru 10:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

High Court Challenge

Is there a seperate wiki page for this or or do we not have any info on the high court challenge? It seems so far the states have the upper hand as the corporations power does not extend to IR and some of the reasoning by the federal govt lawyers has been attacked by the high court judges including Kirby... I would be interested to read a detailed unbias view but it seems wikipedia has nothing on it :(

Both sides have received unfriendly comments from various judges. This is by no means an open and shut case. Xtra 06:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See New South Wales v Commonwealth (Workplace Relations Challenge).--cj | talk 05:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no legal authority yet to say that the corps power doesn't extend to IR or indeed to any law beginning with "A corporation..." It just hasn't been tested yet. Daniel 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Just for reference:

WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - Section 643 Subsection 10

An application under subsection (1) must not be made on the ground referred to in paragraph (1)(a), or on grounds that include that ground, if, at the relevant time, the employer employed 100 employees or fewer, including:

(a) the employee whose employment was terminated; and

(b) any casual employee who had been engaged by the employer on a regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months;

but not including any other casual employee.

Xtra 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Referenda

It should be noted that in the past that referenda have been held to transfer IR powers to the commonwealth and have been defeated on each occasion. http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/referendums/dates.htm - Cartman02au 10:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That is really a point about the constitutional validity of the law(and not a very convincing one) and not about the law itself and is OR unless you can produce a source that someone argued it in court or something like that. Xtra 10:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes

I've added a much needed WikiQuote box to the bottom of the page, any contributions are welcome.Ed- 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Billy?

In the "Removing the "No Disadvantage Test" for agreements" section there is a reference to "the example of Billy". There's no explanation of what this example is or who "Billy" might be, and the footnote provided at the end of the section (note 11 at the time of writing this) is now dead: the Australian page linked to simply says "Due to copyright restrictions, this story is no longer available at NEWS.com.au.". I'm not Australian and don't know how to sort this out: someone who is, please do so. 81.153.109.146 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From [18]:

"While in theory employees cannot be forced to sign an individual agreement, when employment, a pay rise, or promotion depend upon it, many will effectively be coerced into agreeing to such conditions. This is the meaning of the example of ‘Billy’ on in the Government’s documentation (‘Work Choices’ 2005, p 15).

"Billy is unemployed. He is offered a full-time job. He must sign an AWA that excludes all the above ‘protected’ award conditions in order to take the job: ‘Because Billy wants to get a foothold in the job market, he agrees to the individual contract and accepts the job offer’." Orderinchaos 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This section still has misleading citations. The last sentence ("Unions and other groups that remain opposed to WorkChoices say that Billy is a perfect example of why the new laws are unfair and will lead to bosses exploiting their workers") has a citation to a Lateline transcript that doesn't mention Billy at all. However, it does cover the arguments relating to exploitation. DLeonard 13:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And more bias

Ha ha ha. MrLefty... you are a funny bugger. Can't use the word "reform" because it implies positive change. Oh, you are such a joker! What I think is even more funny is that this page features a lovely portrait of the 11 ALP MPs ejected for carrying on like pork chops over the issue, when they should have been acting like adults! That has a lot to do with Workchoices doesn't it? And that spanner Combet is there too. I guess he needs an intro. If you're going to play with the ACTU you have to let them have a seat or two. This is such a biased article it is hilarious.--Grinning Idiot 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the content in the article seems to be relevant - in many ways the negative public impression of the changes are more relevant than the changes themselves in terms of political significance. The Golden rule of Wikipedia - if something is wrong, and you've got the sources to show it, fix it yourself. - 203.166.252.95 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

I'm going to put this up for good article review soon for possible delisting of its GA status due to not meeting the good article criteria 2b, 3a, and possibly 4. Please see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for more guidance on the criteria. For example, having only one inline reference in the WorkChoices#Significant changes section, (criterion 2b) and the article not really covering what happened with WorkChoices in 2006. (3a) Was it being enacted the be all and end all of WorkChoices in 2006? The references all need to be checked for non-404ing,(2b) and there's some concern about POV - weasel wording and the like. (4) The references need to be consistently formatted, (2b) and the external links embedded in the text like this need to go.(1b) Please assume good faith and work quickly to improve the article. -Malkinann 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now at Good Article Review. -Malkinann 23:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Delisted per article quality concerns, here. Giggy _U^CP 05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Advertising campaign funded by the tax payers

Do you notice the very specific wording used in the adds? Have a very close listen and see what they say.

EG the work choices boss "some people say you are alone and not protected" "You are not alone"

Does not say anything about protected! I wonder why?

I also noticed, no adds mention when you go for a new job. Its this is the offer if you dont like it, Ill get somone else.

Thats hardly surprising tho, If I was using tax payers money (That alot of political parties do, Hi Mike Rann!) I would want it to benfit me/my interests. --Polygamyx4 08:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If they could get someone else, then someone else gets a job. The government is for *everyone* not for you alone. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard of the article

Whilst I agree the standard of this article was at one stage close to outstanding, especially for how much of WorkChoices Australia had progressed through at the time, one (or I could be alone on this) cant help but wonder if this article has fallen somewhat in to disrepute. It's times like this I wish we had Adam Carr back with us. Timeshift 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)