State Election 2010

[frank1]

I think Labor has my vote next election, just the things the Rann government has done and still to do for this state; new airport, new royal adelaide, improved roads, electric trains, mining/defence industries, they've also brought trams back to Adelaide's streets and are building a desal plant. What have the opposition done? not much other than whinge when Hamilton-Smith was in charge, and we havnt seen or heard much from the new leader of the lib party yet.

It sounds like your fishing and you want a liberal fish to take your bait

[rhino]

I thought the Liberal fish had all been washed up?

Oops, did I say that out loud?

[Aidan]

The 2010 SA Election will be decided on whether the public like or dislike the Liberal Party.

Then Labor's effectively already won it. The public despise the state Liberal Party. And there's a good reason for that: nearly a decade of false economies, neglected services, talking down the state for political reasons, and resorting to corporate welfare instead of working to make the state more competitive for all businesses. And even after leaving office, they kept defending decisions that were so bad that there was a public consensus that John Olsen should be locked up in Baxter or Woomerra!

People have grown tired of Media Mike's antics.

Not as tired as I am of your obsession with his antics! It's his policies that matter, and they're mostly pretty good.

Unfortunately there are a few (like the new RAH) that are not good. Rann does have a fairly good track record of backing down in the face of public opinion, but in this instance it looks like he might not be strong enough to do so. Even so, for the Liberals to get back in, they have to convince us not only that they'd do some things better, but also that they wouldn't do everything else much worse!

[Omicron]

The 2010 SA Election will be decided on whether the public like or dislike the Liberal Party.

Then Labor's effectively already won it. The public despise the state Liberal Party. And there's a good reason for that: nearly a decade of false economies, neglected services, talking down the state for political reasons, and resorting to corporate welfare instead of working to make the state more competitive for all businesses. And even after leaving office, they kept defending decisions that were so bad that there was a public consensus that John Olsen should be locked up in Baxter or Woomerra!

Now now, Mr. Aidan - you're generally a sensible chap. None of this hearsay - that's my job.

[stumpjumper]

I'm a Liberal voter, but I am starting to think they might be unelectable, even against the sleazy bunch of Labor cronies who are sucking at the public teat.

The Libs won't act. They have ample targets, but there's always an issue, a caveat to prevent forthright action.

How many hundreds of thousands of dollars does Atkinson have to cost the taxpayer before the Libs speak up? How many junkets does Foley have to take before the Libs complain?

How many of the ALP faithful does Rann have to place strategically in the top public service posts before the Libs say anything?

How many first class trips aropiund the world will Labor MP's rack up, and take, on frequent flier points before the Libs even squeak?

How much abuse of the Gold Card will the Libs let go to the keeper before acting?

The answer to all the above - from a Liberal MP - is that 'We have to go very very gently - all this cuts both ways, remember.'

In other words,'We do it too, and we're not prepared to sacrifice these pathetic advantages for the chance to manage the state.'

With that attitude, they don't deserve to win.

[adam73837]

If you can read this then you've gone too far back in the thread and need to go back to the end of it.

[stumpjumper]

I think SA's politics would drive a political analyst round the twist.

The state isn't exactly booming by comparison with the rest of Australia.

Our state government is dominated by a group of generally unlikeable Alpha males more noted for arrogance and use of the media than real achievements, and who bully the electorate.

The Liberals don't seemed to have a strategy for dealing with this as we approach the election, or they're not revealing it yet.

But they are ready to go with one shot - an attempt to re-ignite the shopping hours debate, presumably to show how much under the control of the 'Shoppies' union the government is in the matter of shopping hours. Leader Isobel Redmond appeared on camera suggesting that SA should have deregulated hours, but weakened the 'attack' by not pointing out that it is the union which is preventing the change.

The government fired back on the same day on the TV news services with Minister Wright and Peter Manilauskas of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association justifying the union's stand (and incidentally validating the Lib's argument that it is the union that is stopping the deregulation) by saying that numerous polls of his members have shown that they don't want deregulated hours (although in fact there are plenty of takers for after hours and weekend jobs). The pair effectively said 'no way', without any reference to the wishes of the public, business or tourists, all of whom have consistently demanded relaxation of the trading laws.

My bet is that the issue will fizzle out, because it's a road we've all gone down before and the SDA wins every time. I'd predict the same again, with no change - no advantage to the Libs or disadvantage to Labor. The only loser will be the public, business and tourists.

[Norman]

The interesting point here is that they only polled their members on this topic. People who don't see eye-to-eye with the SDA or don't want to pay the SDA 5 bucks a week in union fees have not bothered to join up with the union, so if they really want to see a good cross-section of what workers think, poll all the workers, not just the members who want to have a say.

[monotonehell]

What exactly do you mean by 'deregulated hours' in respect to the unions? Retail employees can already be worked pretty much 7 out of 7 days and most hours from 6am to 9pm, with little or no penalties.

[stumpjumper]

Mono, I think they're really talking about department stores where staff are permanent and are SDA members. Franchises like McDonalds or traders like Bunnings who do most of their business at the weekends, employ mostly casual staff on penalty rates.

The department stores don't employ many casuals nor do they like paying high penalty rates - up to 250% for Sunday public holidays under the award.

Deregulation means allowing a business to trade at any time without having to pay penalty rates.

So it's really a battle between the SDA and the department stores. If the department stores offered to pay penalty rates, the SDA would allow its parliamentary wing to deregulate hours and let the big department stores trade when they wanted to. But they won't let that happen without the penalty rates continuing. At the moment, it's a standoff, and will continue to be.

The same battle wouldn't happen interstate because while the SDA has many members (230,000 around Australia) it's only in South Australia that together with the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union it controls the state government, dividing preselections between them and dealing out ministerial positions 50/50 regardless of merit.

That is why Michael Atkinson, the mistake-prone Attorney General is completely bulletproof however many mistakes he makes or how much his errors cost the taxpayers. He is protected by his union, the Shoppies.

The present business of the Premier's years old and unspecified liaison is very odd. There seems to be not much in it. There's no allegation of sexual misbehaviour or cheating by Rann - he was unattached at the time - and he hasn't spoken to the woman involved for 4 years!

However, Labor has wound it up, saying that Rann has endured 6 months of horror, suggesting that somehow it is all connected with this liaison and that much of it has been orchestrated by the Liberals, and that he, the Premier cannot comment on the supposed affair because the matter is 'before the police'.

The irony is that Rann has made himself the master of 'politics by perception' and cannot complain if it has turned to bite him.

Why can't he do what David Letterman has done, caught having a real affair. Letterman admitted it, apologised and moved on.

Rann seems so addicted to spin that he is even trying to leverage this business into votes, claim that the Libs are attacking him, his children etc.

There is no prohibition on him making comments because the 'matter is before the police", despite Rann's claims. It is only when the courts become involved that there could be any sort of restriction on him commenting, for example if the matter becomes sub judice, and that's a long way off.

He should consider the sayings 'hoist by his own petard', and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'.

[cruel_world00]

So stumpjumper, you don't think retail workers deserve penalty rates?

[Wayno]

what's the deal (financially speaking) interstate for weekend retail workers? maybe the penalty rates aren't as high as ours in SA?

[monotonehell]

So stumpjumper, you don't think retail workers deserve penalty rates?

Yes this ^^^

Why should retail workers (who are already some of the lowest paid employees out there) be made to work all kinds of odd hours with no penalties? I think you'll also find that most large stores open when they want to these days. Some open until 9 every week night. It's mostly about whether the business is there at the times or not.

[Aidan]

So stumpjumper, you don't think retail workers deserve penalty rates?

Surely whether they deserve penalty rates depends on the base rate they're getting paid?

Anyway, deregulation of employment standards isn't the issue - as it was one of the main issues that lost the Howard government the election, it's safe to conclude the public has rejected the idea. But deregulation of shopping hours is different - it's entirely a state issue, and the existing laws are silly - they inconvenience potential customers yet don't give any significant benefit to staff.

[monotonehell]

So stumpjumper, you don't think retail workers deserve penalty rates?

Surely whether they deserve penalty rates depends on the base rate they're getting paid?

They get paid very little. The base rate is around $33k a year full time. And that's being worked up to 38-40 hours a week, anytime between 6am and 9pm, any weekday or a slightly reduced range of hours on week ends. Casual staff often get a flat rate with little restrictions on hours they can be rostered.

Anyway, deregulation of employment standards isn't the issue - as it was one of the main issues that lost the Howard government the election, it's safe to conclude the public has rejected the idea. But deregulation of shopping hours is different - it's entirely a state issue, and the existing laws are silly - they inconvenience potential customers yet don't give any significant benefit to staff.

Can you give specific examples that "inconvenience potential customers yet don't give any significant benefit to staff". When aren't the stores open when they could be? Most stores you will find, have experimented with extended hours and then more recently cut back of their own volition. Other than one day in Easter and boxing day, when do retail staff get a public holiday off?