What are the consequences of the new industrial laws announced today by John Howard?

In a booming economy, those who are employed in sound businesses and those who have skills in high demand, not much. The labour and skills shortages will insulate them from change.

For employees in industries that are struggling, the picture isn't so good. They can expect management to pressure them to give up award conditions. Long service? The company can't afford it. Penalties for overtime? We can't afford time and a half .... you'll have to accept time and a quarter. What, you don't like it? Well, we can move the factory to China and cut our costs even further.

The government knows there'll be losers. There won't be any meaningful assurances from the government countering this.

The effects of changes to unfair dismissal laws will be mixed. It will encourage businesses to hire. I know of small business proprioters who won't hire after losing out to former employees who knew how to manipulate the current unfair dismissal regime. On the other hand, the small business 'nazi' operator will have the ideal means to cover up harassment, unsafe work practises and exploitation.

The government's strategy is typical of conservative thinking. Where the former Labor government worked on the consultative model to bring in change and productivity improvements and allow all parties to reap the benefits, the conservative's method is to make it easier to reduce labour costs as an alternative to gaining productivity improvements. The consultative model takes more effort, but the effects are longer lasting. Expect a lot more manufacturing to move offshore in coming years, after cost cutting doesn't result in improved productivity.

The real effect of the new laws won't be felt until the next economic downturn. In the event of a recession, with profit margins squeezed and unemployment rising, all employees will face the possibility of eroded work conditions without being able to do much about it.

Update: Flute and Surfdom have more to say on this.

In late after a school P & F meeting and a couple of beers at the nearby local.

Missed the budget telecast. Listened to the outline on the 10.00pm ABC radio news as I made tomorrow's school lunches.

Then onto the net. Checked the SMH website and my favourite blogs.

Seems that the wealthier classes have done well out of the proceedings. If you're earn lower than the top 20%, you get bugger all. Those above do OK.

Hardly surprising, really. The US government's done it. We're sure to follow.

I should mention here that although I'm well short of those on $120k per year who gain the most out of the tax changes, I am comfortably in the zone that will benefit. Despite this, I'm very uncomfortable with this government's economic philosophy.

It's typical that this snivelling government chose to re-jig the tax rates so only the wealthy received any real benefit. They could have easily reset the rates so everyone gained a real increase, but chose not to. Of course, people at the upper ends wouldn't have done quite so well, but they would have coped.

It's typical that this snivelling government chose to tighten the requirement for single parents to receive benefits once their kids reach a certain age, while allowing wealthy supported unemployed women to still collect the Part A (or is it B?) non-means tested Family payment.

Why are they doing the huge handouts now? It's not an election year. Do they really think the economy is going to grow at present rates indefinitely? Where's the provision for the period after the inevitable economic downturn? Where's the extra funding for education and infrastructure? The savings for looking after the rapidly ageing population?

On the face of it, this is a budget with no thought for the future. It's a budget that's a response to the whinging of the moneyed upper class. It's a budget that the county my well regret in coming years.

If Costello thinks that this budget will smooth the way to his gaining the Lodge, he's got another think coming!

Seems as though the IVF funding question's too hard and has been shoved off to a committee. Obviously too much pain for too little gain.

Maybe never to return? Hope so, but can't see the Mad Monk giving up so easily.

There's been a lot in press lately about In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). The government's threatened to limit the number of IVF cycles that will be funded through Medicare. You'd think that these measures would only be enacted because they save a lot of money. You'd be wrong .... the predicted savings are in the range of $7 - $15 million. When compared to a health budget running into the billions, it's nothing.

So why are they doing it? Perhaps the reason can be fathomed from a comment on a spray The Flute wrote on the same subject ...

Yes Mr. Flute, I am very uncomfortable with IVF being funded at all, let alone 3 cycles. The whole program of IVF is creepy and contemptuous of life. It is like a conveyor belt of humans, most of whom are consigned to the trash heap, or now tested upon at the whim of speculative scientists.

“The various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life. Apart from the fact that they are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act, 14 these techniques have a high rate of failure: not just failure in relation to fertilisation but with regard to the subsequent development of the embryo, which is exposed to the risk of death, generally within a very short space of time. Furthermore, the number of embryos produced is often greater than that needed for implantation in the woman’s womb, and these so-called “spare embryos� are then destroyed or used for research which, under the pretext of scientific or medical progress, in fact reduces human life to the level of simple “biological material� to be freely disposed of.�
Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II, 1995.

The quote comes from the conservative, and I'm assuming Catholic, commentator Marcel White. His blog is titled 'Pro Life, Melbourne.'

Of course, Marcel is welcome to his opinion, but at age 20 (from his blog's bio), he better hope that when he eventually decides to have a family, everything works for him and Mrs White. There's a significant chance it won't. This is something I know a lot about.

My three children are the product of IVF. We reluctantly took this path because we couldn't conceive in the "fully human context of the conjugal act" to quote JP2's screed. The reasons why the natural way didn't work for us are unclear; any health problems we had in this area were minor and didn't prevent many other similarly effected couples from conceiving.

Thankfully, the procedure worked for us without having to go through many cycles that is all too common when playing IVF roulette. At the first try we produced twin girls. Seven years later, much to the surprise of the doctors, my son was born, a product of a frozen embryo conceived from our original egg collection.

How Marcel and his ilk figure that using science to help childless couples conceive is "creepy and contemptuous of life" is beyond me.

I suspect it's no coincidence that, as our Federal Health Minister comes from the conservative Catholic sphere, that this area of health funding is being targeted. First it was a move against the funding of abortions, now cuts to IVF procedures.

It's heartening to hear opposition to the move being voiced from within the government. It's hard to see the proposal going ahead under the current political climate.