Talk:Australian House of Representatives grows heated over industrial relations legislation

Original reporting

This article contains original reporting based on official transcripts of Parliament. - Borofkin 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

More information

great start on the article but what about (was it eight) labour members ejected from the house? Did Kevin Andrews have to wait a hour to read the report out after it had been tabled? --Whywhywhy 01:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Six, by my count. Just added it. Would have added it earlier but Adobe Acrobat was screwing around with me, so couldn't. Dysprosia 01:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

some more 700 page bill legislation and 500 dditional pages of explanatory memoranda http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/11/02-1552-6392.html

and there is a article some where about how much its going to cost to implement

--Whywhywhy 02:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17113426%255E2702,00.html

i found it "The Government will spend an extra $500 million over four years on new and enhanced government regulatory bodies handed the job of encouraging workplace bargaining, especially via non-union individual employment contracts." but its from :"Government sources" how could this be included or can it? --Whywhywhy 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

and maybe a edited version: "Meanwhile, New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma says his Government has received legal advice suggesting the legislation is unconstitutional, because it is using its power under the corporations law to end the role of the states and territories in the industrial relations system. "It is our view that the Commonwealth is misusing this law to achieve exactly what it was designed to prevent," Mr Iemma said. He says Queensland Premier Peter Beattie is backing the High Court challenge. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1496903.htm

whats your opinion on the inclusions of these points.? --Whywhywhy 03:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it. Go ahead and stick 'em in the article if you want. - Borofkin 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, all states are planning a legal challenge to the laws. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning these laws may face a further challenge in the senate due to the extremely slim majority and the risk of the Queensland National and Family First senator opposing. Oh and background info one these laws is needed, especially as there doesn't appear to be an additional wikinews article on them. What they will do & what opposition to them is about (removal of guarateed breaks, easier to fire people, government ability to end strikes, voting requirements for calling strikes, likelihood that a youth worker will be able to neogiate for the breaks etc in abscence of laws requiring them) Nil Einne 11:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

All the states? I thought victoria had already given up it rights? Ill look for a article

I think everything gets threw the senate with slim majority.Ima neither here nor their on it being added

Links to the previous articles is a good idea as for the changes effect they are in the normal wiki area but you could find all the quotes or read the bill and post the relevent things.

--Whywhywhy 04:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)