'The Pigs' has argued for some time that the full privatisation of Telstra was fraught for the simple reason that the company controls the 'local loop,' ie, the last few kilometres of copper cable that connects customers to the exchange. Telstra has fought competition by restricting access to the local loop, usually by charging high prices for the privilege.

The competition regulators are kept busy trying to keep tabs on Telstra's wholesale pricing, with some success. It is now possible for competitors to 'uncouple' the local loop by connecting the copper directly to their network, but Telstra will always have a measure of control while the local loop is connected through their exchanges.

In my opinion, a better idea would have been to keep the local loop and the exchanges' back ends in government control, and privatised the service component of the telco.

Anyway, this is all history as the government is pushing ahead with the full privatisation, and the measures to control Telstra's pricing seem to be working. Telstra is having difficulty in maintaining income at past levels. The market value of Telstra has fallen significantly.

Recently, Telstra proposed an upgrade of the local loop using optical fibre technology. This is a positive step as it will allow far larger data throughput to customers. However, it's an expensive exercise and the catch is that Telstra proposes to maintain control over the network with regards to pricing and access. In other words, reinforcing its monopoly.

Telstra's proposal is a cynical move to influence the government.

Proposing changes to legislation when in Opposition is dangerous, even to laws as unpopular as "Work Choices." Badly thought out responses will form the basis of a government scare campaign, and it's heartening that Labor seems to have realised this, judging from recent comments by Kim Beazley.

From the ABC's AM program:

KAREN BARLOW: Kim Beazley says the new laws have given employers too much power and are cultivating a culture of workplace bullying and intimidation.

The Labor leader says the Government has not been able to give any evidence that the new laws increase productivity. And he says the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, has not been able to exactly define what the legislation allows and disallows.

KIM BEAZLEY: We can't even get a straight answer about whether or not Australians are still entitled to public holidays, like Good Friday, Easter Monday or Anzac Day.

The legislation says that if they're told to work on a public holiday, employees must have reasonable grounds to refuse. It has to be said, there may be a great impetus here to religious conversion, because when you ask what reasonable grounds actually means, you just get another torrent of legalese. So you'd better want to go to mass on Christmas Day, that's all I can say.

KAREN BARLOW: Under the new laws, the Workplace Relations Minister can declare elements of workplace agreements to be prohibited content and have them struck out.

Kim Beazley says a Labor Government would do away with that ministerial interference.

KIM BEAZLEY: Already they have implemented regulations the can fine an employer $33,000 just for including protections from unfair dismissal in workplace agreements.

What kind of choice is that? How ridiculous that this legislation was called WorkChoices.

KAREN BARLOW: Mr Beazley says sympathetic employers may be reluctant to commit to childcare and family-friendly terms of employment in writing, out of fear of prosecution.

He's promised to give employers and workers flexibility to negotiate and agree on the terms and conditions that they want in their agreements.

KIM BEAZLEY: That could mean practical provisions to help them with family life, like working from home when childcare is not available, moving to a work location closer to school or childcare, and assistance with locating childcare, out of school care and elder care.

KAREN BARLOW: Labor would also establish in every state and many regional centres, an unfair dismissal tribunal, along similar lines to the Small Claims Tribunal.

The unfair dismissal tribunal would allow both bosses and workers to be heard and it would be required to resolve 90 per cent of claims within 90 days of lodgement.

These comments are a change from the previous "we're going to rip-up the legislation" line that Beazley previously stated. It's recognition that the new IR legislation framework will stand after the election of a Labor government, if for no other reason that Labor will never have a majority in the Senate.

It's unlikely that the majority of the population wants (or really cares) to return completely to the old system, but they do want safeguards. They want some protection from unfair dismissal, guarantees of public holidays, and having the option to collective bargain and being represented by a union.

The IR changes are bringing mountains of bad news for the government. Sensible handling of the issue by Labor is their best opportunity in a decade. Let's hope they don't stuff it up!

Footnote: To my three regular readers, have a safe and pleasant Easter.

Thanks to Alan Moir for permission to display the cartoon.

To date, the Sty has been silent on the AWB scandal, believing that the government would not authorise a Royal Commission if there was the slightest chance they'd be implicated in any wrongdoing. Perhaps I've been a little too cynical. Past commissions have gained a life of their own, ending up biting the hand that created them. Fitzgerald in Queensland is one that comes to mind.

The commissioner will be hard pressed to absolutely state that the Ministers knew about the AWB's actions in Iraq, but he can be unequivocal that they should have known. This is a good result, and much better than I'd expected.

It's hard to see how Vaile's reputation won't be damaged by the revelations ... or should I say, by the numerous answers of 'I can't recall' and 'I don't remember.'

Ditto for Downer, as we can expect similar answers from him tomorrow. Even in Dolly's mind, the likelyhood of him progressing in the ministry, ie, to Treasury if Howard retires, must be zero.

Only the teflon coated Prime Minister is unassailable. His two underlings will shield him from blame.

In past situations, there may have been resignations, but we all know Westminster government accountability is dead. The best we can hope for is to rely on the collective memory of the electorate. A depressing thought.

Workers shouldn't take too much comfort from the recent events at the Cowra Meatworks. Sure, the company backed down, but the issue of whether the action they were taking is legal has yet to be resolved. I don't think this will be clarified by a court case for a while yet.

The company must have been subjected to a lot of pressure to reverse its decision. Government inspectors investigated the matter, but I suspect the lobbying of employer groups (prompted by the government?) had more to do with the company's decision to back down. The employers know had badly this issue is playing with the public at large, and are mindful that the measures won't survive if the government loses the nest election.

What this matter has shown is that employees who are covered under current agreements are relatively safe for now. The real action will start when those agreements are up for renegotiation, as new agreements only have to contain the minimum conditions.

Most EBAs and AWAs won't expire until after the next election, and the employers will be on their best behaviour until then. The real difficulty for the Labor Party and the unions is to keep the issue alive in the minds of the voters over the next 18 months.

The Prime Minister says it will take a few months for the [industrial] laws to settle in and he believes there will be good news stories in the future. (From the ABC.)

This is after a spate of incidents where workers have been sacked and offered their jobs back under inferior conditions.

The PM has never had a job in the real world, and it's starting to show. Is this the line that the employers' organisations pushed to get change and does he really believe it? Or are the polls not looking too good? Methinks probably both.

And then this ...

The head of Australia's Chamber of Commerce and Industry insists the new WorkChoices laws are good for workers as well as employers.

ACCI chief executive Peter Hendy has told Channel Nine that thousands of people were sacked each week before the new laws were implemented.

He says the new system provides workers and their employers with more opportunities.

"They're opportunities for enterprise based bargaining, which we think will actually help sustain the real wage rise, that we've seen one of the best periods for decades and also one of the lowest unemployment rates for 30 years," he said.

The booming economy and low umemployment rates happened before the IR changes were implemented. Maybe Hendy just thinks we're stupid.