Malcolm Fraser conducted economic policy with two broad sweeps of the brush; keep inflation low by keeping the federal budget out of deficit, and stopping trade unions increasing wages in a full employment economy. In my opinion, the recent IR legislation has Frasernomics as its driving force.

Gary Sauer-Thompson on his brilliant political philosophy site discusses the contrasts in individualism and conservatism by dissecting an op-ed from Ken Phillips. From Phillips op-ed in the Australian ;

In this respect the Howard Government's proposals [IR] are truly radical because the stark alternative offered is a belief that individuals do and can have the capacity to control their work futures. This individualism assaults the Australian conservative settlement. We have a cultural battle, between a belief in the self and a cultural fear of the self.

I don't agree with this, while there is a tension between conservatism and individualism in Australia, I don't believe the IR legislation fractures along those lines. Rather than individualism, this is an attempt to stop inflationary pressures. In the US, inflation is jumping up past four percent between energy, education, housing and other areas. The Australian CPI has been relatively stable .

The spin appears to be, this IR legislation will make Australia competitive; supposedly through deflationary pressure on wages in commodity industries. Kirby Adams is from Bluescope Steel ;

"This kind of industrial reform is required to attract and retain investment capital in this country and to ensure Australia is globally competitive in manufacturing," he said.

A good chunk of the legislation in the Workplaces Amendment places restrictions on industrial action and how Unions can interact between employer and employee.

I do not like the IR legislation because it is anti-federalist. The federal government has no right to be legislating in this area. It is another massive power grab by a federal government seeking to collapse all authority to Canberra.

From the Workplaces Amendment [PDF Warning] ;

(1) This Act is intended to apply to the exclusion of all the following laws of a State or Territory so far as they would otherwise apply in relation to an employee or employer:
(a) a State or Territory industrial law;
(b) a law that applies to employment generally and deals with leave other than long service leave;
(c) a law providing for a court or tribunal constituted by a law of the State or Territory to make an order in relation to equal remuneration for work of equal value (as defined in section 170BB);
(d) a law providing for the variation or setting aside of rights and obligations arising under a contract of employment, or another arrangement for employment, that a court or tribunal finds is unfair;
(e) a law that entitles a representative of a trade union to enter premises for a purpose other than a purpose connected with occupational health and safety.

I hope it is challenged by Queensland in the High Court, or alternatively, one of the states goes feral on the issue. The legislation also empowers Ministers to break strikes (Division 7, 112). This is like the DIMIA legislation which places undue power in the hands of Ministers, essentially making the use of such powers arbitrary.

Additionally, if I was a small business owner and had to read through all this - the amendments run to 691 pages - I would be throwing my arms up in the air in a quick WTF.

The legislation itself looks par for the course for the Howard Government; it is hostile to unions, hostile to the states, and adds a new layer of complex regulation, overhead and uncertainty to anyone (employer or employee) subject to it.

cam

The US Senate is poised to hold a vote of no-confidence in the US Attorney-General today. No confidence votes have a different meaning in a Presidential system to a Parliamentary one, in the latter it can bring down a government, ironically, because of poor separation of powers; it cannot in a Presidential system.

The most famous no-confidence vote in Australian Parliament is the one that brought down the Gorton Government. The lead up of events involved the resignation of Malcolm Fraser as Minister for Defence, and journalist Alan Ramsey yelling out "you liar" during in parliament. A no-confidence vote was brought against Gorton and ended up 33-33. Gorton cast the deciding vote and declared the position of leader vacant.

No-confidence votes in the US system do not bring such dramatic results. In fact, I could not find an instance of a no-confidence vote being performed in the US House of Representatives. Bush's comment on the proposed no-confidence bill was :

They can try to have their vote of no confidence, but it's not going to determine - make the determination, who serves in my government. There's been no wrongdoing.

There is probably good reason to believe that the Attorney-General's office has violated the Hatch Act; but the prior sentences are correct.

The US Executive Cabinet is appointed by the President, but without Senate approval they are just nominations:

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:

That the US Senate is holding the vote of no-confidence suggests that their approval of Gonzales has been removed. The no-confidence vote is symbolic in the US, as it is in the Australian system, but in the US it has less capability to bring about a dramatic change.

From the party political point of view, it wedges several Republican Senators who must choose between loyalty to the President as a leading member of their party, or their conscience, which surely must recognise how poorly administered and highly politicised the Justice Department has become. Charles Schumer said as much :

If all senators who have actually lost confidence in Attorney General Gonzales voted their conscience, this vote would be unanimous.

Then again many of the elected Republicans, in the House and Senate, have tried to distance themselves politically from Bush, who languishes in the low 30% of popularity. This may be a chance for them to publicly slap Bush's Administration on the wrist.

I suspect a more successful policy, from both a political and good governance stand point, is to continue to act as a check and balance on the Bush Administration and hold inquiries into their conduct of executive affairs.

A no-confidence vote in a Presidential system will not restore good governance, the legislative energetically overseeing the executive will.