I'd say it played a minor role, at best.

By increasing demand for employees.

Obviously I am not suggesting that workchoices is responsible for more than a small part of the increase in demand. This will explain how it works better than I could:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Note that as far as the local labour market is concerned, the supply side is very insensitive (ie constrained, the 'labour shortage').

You could say the same about any group of people - scientists, doctors etc. They agree on the basics of their discipline, but disagree on the edges. The difference with economics is that 'the basics' is a much smaller body of knowledge. However, this is still within the basics (the supply and demand stuff from my last post anyway).

Note also the distinction between normative and summative claims. Most other disciplines are almost wholly within the summative, at least as far as the public perception of the philosophical territory is concerned. This is not true for economics. Economists are far more likely to agree on the summative and disagree on the normative. Of course, it's always the normative issues you here them arguing about, as they are the interesting ones.

BTW, I don't consider myself an economist. It's just one of my interests.

Sorry, that should have been positive, not summative.

The distinction between normative and positive is a valuable one to understand, especially for politics. I often see the two confused on this forum, when you get two people disagreeing with each other but not understanding why. Or when someone describes a phenomenon and it is taken as support for a position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality.

For example, "children should eat vegetables", "smoking is bad", and "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" are normative claims. On the other hand, "vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins", "smoking causes cancer", and "a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both" are positive claims. Whether or not a statement is normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement

In economics and philosophy, a positive statement concerns what is, and contains no indication of approval or disapproval. A positive statement can be factually incorrect: "The moon is made of black and gold cheese" is false, but a positive statement, as it is a statement about what exists. Positive statements are contrasted with normative statements.

Historical origins of the term could include reference to the philosophical notion of positivism.

yes, if we wanted to discuss with wikipedia we would go there.

Have you forgotten John Howards editing already.