glee wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

Of course there is one worse than the other. Labor have become a deseased party. The virus is running rampant.

As for all parties lying, then you have to go with one that lies the least and it aint the greens that I am thinking. You can't just go the least that lies and ignore their extremism.

glee wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 9:26am:

Whatever. There is always a worse in everything, good or bad.

Work Choices was not taken to an election Howard just forced it onto us while he controlled the Senate and the house of Representatives....No debate or chance to amend the legislation it was just a piece of dirty work supported by the Coalition of whom most now sit on the opposition front bench.....Now you lot complain because your election bribes are being cut back to support the integrity of the budget....It is fiscally responsible to means test assistance where Howard was reckless and grubby to buy votes!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 11:46am:


You are the last person to speak about honesty Andre.....You have no moral integrity what so ever!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 11:44am:



Work Choices anyone????

C'mon you lot....If you condemn the health care rebate then how do you justify Work Choices???

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:



I totally supported workchoices.

It was about bringing the employer and the employee into more direct contact to best suit the new global market place.

It was about restricting the interference of third parties in the employment process.

I have had an employment contract all my working life in the roles I have had.
I am yet to work for a company with smaller revenue than $3.5bn.
So if you are worried about level playing fields - you'd hardly call me and the employer in the same ballpark would you?
But it works fine.

I tend to get market rate - which everyone else should anyway.

Workchoices was about getting a more fluid workforce and cutting red tape to enable employers to respond to global market pressures easier.

it was a good idea - and the Unions just chucked mud at it because they could see it would end their gravy train.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 12:13pm:


And the point about "taking it to an election" is based on the fact that Gillard made the no carbon tax promise during an election and reneged on it immediately when she got into office

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:



Which is almost universally accepted that she went back on her word.
Even those in the Labor party state this.