HEY! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET?

Or the Japanese diet, for that matter? Countries that seem especially healthy in one way or another often have their characteristic diet promoted as the secret to a long life. On the figures below, I expect the Australian diet will now be similarly promoted -- a diet heavy in big Macs, KFC, chips (French fries), fried food generally, Coca cola and everything that the food faddists deplore. When will the world discover the health-giving wonders of fat-heavy meat pies and Vegemite sandwiches -- to say nothing of Lamingtons and Iced VoVos? Pardon me while I duck out for a nice sausage roll -- encased in flaky pastry that's greasy with fat! You can get them anywhere in Australia



Figures recently released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that Australians are among the longest-living people in the world, with an average lifespan of 78.5 years for males and 83.3 years for females born "Down Under."

But the figures drop by around 17 years for indigenous Australians, whose average life expectancy in 2001 was 59.4 years for males and 64.8 for females. Several factors, including poverty, discrimination, substance abuse [including pervasive alcohol abuse] and poor access to health, are believed to affect the lifespan of these original Australians.

For the rest of the nation, the capital Canberra -- often derided as boring and soulless -- is statistically the best place to sustain a long life. The lakeside city's 325,000 people enjoy the longest average lifespan, with women living to 84 years and most men to 79.9. Built to resolve a bitter 1908 dispute between Sydney and Melbourne over which should be capital, modern Canberra has the wealthiest and best-educated population in Australia. The city's unemployment rate hovers at barely 2.8 percent, while weekly wages are well above the Australian average at A$1,208 (US$941), backed by a booming information technology industry and government salaries.

At the other end of the scale is the sparsely populated outback Northern Territory, cinematic home to "Crocodile Dundee." The territory accounts for only 1 percent of Australia's 20 million population. Men there live to 72.5 years on average, while women live to 78.2. More than a quarter of the population are aboriginal Australians, who often live on remote communities with poor access to jobs, health and education services and have one of the lowest life expectancies.

Australia's nationwide average life expectancy for males is exceeded only by Iceland and Hong Kong while the female life expectancy is exceeded by Japan and Hong Kong.

Source




A DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA'S PARTIAL LABOUR-MARKET DEREGULATION

Joe Hockey, the federal Minister for Human Resources and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations, says below that the Labor Party's latest attacks on the federal Government's Work Choices reforms ignore the real story in the greater Australian workplace

In recent months, the Howard Government's critics have changed the angle of attack when it comes to workplace relations. No longer able to deny that the vast majority of Australians are better off following a decade of workplace deregulation, the Labor Party and others now accuse the Government of turning its back on families.

Labor's new case is built around the false assumptions that the Work Choices reforms offer no protections and that an individual worker is incapable of negotiating an agreement that improves their circumstances. Work Choices, as academic David McKnight claimed in these pages last week, could mean difficulties for those juggling work and family responsibilities.

McKnight's stance highlights how the debate has shifted. The original charges against Work Choices were simple: the reforms would bring about mass sackings and a wages race to the bottom. But 10 months of bumper employment growth - 200,000 jobs have been created and 80 per cent of those are full-time positions - and higher real wages exposed those charges as little more than base scare-mongering.

Claiming Work Choices is anti-family is another populist angle, but does it stack up? Just like reams of industrial regulation didn't stop unemployment hitting double digits when federal Labor was last in power, it seems dubious to claim more red tape will diminish working hours.

Indeed, recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows people spent less time at work in the first six months of Work Choices. Average weekly hours decreased by 0.7 when compared with the same six-month period of 2005. The long-term trend shows that the substantial growth in average weekly hours under the previous Labor government stabilised when the Coalition came to power and is now starting to enter negative territory.

The figures also underline the thousands of family-friendly agreements that have been struck across the country. I met a man who cut grass at a sugar mill in north Queensland. An inflexible award stipulated standard working hours but he signed an AWA that allowed him to start early and get home to pick up his kids from school. Or there was the Tamworth truck driver who was able to attend his daughter's school concert for the first time after signing a more flexible AWA. And then there were the Perth seafood processors in The Weekend Australian who were able to overcome the difficulties posed by a seasonal industry and negotiate AWAs that moved them from casual to permanent work.

This is a move I've witnessed hundreds of workers make in other parts of the country, where general industry awards cannot take into account the circumstances of every individual worker or their employer. A permanent job doesn't just mean greater certainty. It also means you can apply for a mortgage. Of course, there will always be bad employers - just as there will be bad employees - and the trade unions will do their best to blame every example of irresponsibility on Work Choices, regardless of the facts. Sadly the notion of balance is unlikely to feature prominently in the unions' campaigns this year.

Will the good work already done by the Office of Workplace Services to police rogue employers be recognised? Will reports of workers trading away penalty rates acknowledge the substantial wage rises that flow from these deals? Will the unions concede that Work Choices provides for choice, as the 70 per cent of workers who have chosen to negotiate collective agreements demonstrates? Will the protections enshrined by Work Choices, such as a 38-hour week, personal leave, four weeks' annual leave or parental leave, be given their due?

I doubt we will get an affirmative answer to any of those questions. Yet the notion of balance lies at the heart of this Government's workplace relations reforms. In his book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman talks about three eras of globalisation. The first began when Columbus set sail in 1492, lasted until 1800, and involved trade between nation states. The second era, according to Friedman, spanned the next 200 years and was driven by multinational companies propelled by falling transport and (later) telecommunications costs. And the third era is one where some individuals and small groups are able to collaborate on a global platform made possible by the convergence of the personal computer and high-speed internet.

This platform can mean many things, including allowing more people to work from home, facilitating multiple employers or helping more women enter the workforce. The way we work has changed. More flexibility is required. The platform allows people to balance work and family in a way that suits them.

Governments have a responsibility to create policy that responds to changes such as those described by Friedman. A rigid award-based system may have worked for traditional industries but we need to look at new policies that encompass new economy workplaces. If trade and entrepreneurialism are going to be increasingly driven by individuals, then we must have a workplace relations system that acknowledges this.

This is the part about Work Choices that our critics don't understand. Whether it is the product of self-interest or an outdated us v them mentality, Labor and unions don't think workers can be trusted to make that choice. Australians know a bad deal when they see one. If AWAs are so bad, then why have more than one million been signed? All the workers I met last year who chose to sign an AWA were pleased with their decision.

This Government has demonstrated its commitment to Australian families though a wide range of assistance and tax benefits. Work Choices is a system of flexibility balanced by a range of protections aimed at securing this country's future economic prosperity. It should not be viewed in isolation as Labor would like, but as one plank in a platform that strengthens that commitment. We believe that a strong economy, not endless workplace regulation, is the best way to guarantee a job. We believe in the power and capacity of the individual to choose what best suits them and their families. Australians make choices about so many things in their lives. Why should they be prevented from making decisions for themselves in the workplace?

Source




HUGE RISE IN JOB OPENINGS AFTER LABOUR LAW DEREGULATION

Australian total job vacancies in the three months to November rose 5.9 per cent, seasonally adjusted, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Job vacancies rose 21.4 per cent over the year to November. Seasonally adjusted job vacancies totalled 163,700 in the three months to November compared with an upwardly revised 154,600 in the previous quarter.

Source





Labor party now waters down its opposition to labour market deregulation



Labor would retain controversial Howard Government laws allowing the nation's 800,000 contractors to set their own deals with employers in a new push to recast itself as a friend of the aspirational class. The Opposition, which just weeks ago voted against the legislation, yesterday backed the intention of the laws to allow genuine independent contractors the flexibility to arrive at their own work arrangements. But Labor independent contractors spokesman Craig Emerson foreshadowed possible toughening of the laws to prevent "sham contractor arrangements" being forced on workers by unscrupulous bosses.

His comments, which were cautiously accepted by the ACTU, provide further signs that Labor under new leader Kevin Rudd will craft policies to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation while retaining the Government's emphasis on allowing greater workplace flexibility. Labor industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard said last week she would consider allowing high-income earners greater flexibility to trade off award conditions in exchange for higher pay in individual contracts.

Labor remains opposed to Australian Workplace Agreements private contracts and has vowed to rip up the Government's Work Choices laws if it wins office, but the comments by Dr Emerson and Ms Gillard, who is Deputy Opposition Leader, indicate a shift on less-vulnerable workers. The nation's independent contracting workforce is dominated by agriculture, forestry, fishing and construction workers, as well as truck-drivers, computer experts and professional service industry workers. The Productivity Commission estimates there are about 800,000 of these, but Independent Contractors of Australia claims the figure is closer to 1.9 million - or 20 per cent of the working population.

Parliament last month passed the Independent Contractors Act, exempting independent contractors from state industrial laws, with the exception of those working from home in the clothing and textiles sectors, and contract owner-drivers in NSW and Victoria. The bill was strongly opposed by the unions and Labor, which described it as a backdoor method of stripping workers' rights. The Government amended its original legislation to ban employers from dismissing workers and rehiring them as contractors.

But Dr Emerson said the amendments did not go far enough, revealing that Labor was considering the use of clearer definitions of contracting, similar to those used by the Australian Taxation Office. Dr Emerson said one of the ATO tests for an independent contractor, which Labor wanted to mirror, was that contractors derived no more than 80per cent of their income from one employer. He would investigate giving the courts guidance on a sham arrangement between an employer and a contractor, because he was concerned the Government might have deliberately left the definition vague. "Without being overly prescriptive, I would like to look at bolstering the common law definition by giving guidance to the courts on what constitutes a sham arrangement that might include the tax office definition of a sham arrangement," Dr Emerson said.

Labor's plans mirror those proposed by the Government's House of Representatives backbench committee, but ignored by the Government. "The legislation will allow the courts to see through sham arrangements," Dr Emerson said. "To support independent contractors, I'll also discuss with colleagues options for inexpensive legal remedies of complaints by contractors of unfair contracts being imposed on them."

Dr Emerson, Labor's small business spokesman, played down the role of unions in small business, further distancing the party's approach from the intervention sought by some unions. "It's too costly for unions to organise for so few members in a workplace. Unions have not sought from me special privileges in dealing with small business, and would not expect to get them," he said. Mr Rudd appointed Dr Emerson to the new portfolio to counter the Government's appeal to contractors.

While unions have opposed independent contracting, concerned it is a vehicle for undercutting industrial employee awards, ACTU president Sharan Burrow yesterday said she cautiously backed Labor's plans.

"We need to have detailed discussions clearly with Craig at this point, but we look forward to sitting down and discussing these issues in order to protect working people, whether they're dependent workers or they are genuinely independent contractors," she said. "If Craig is set to eliminate sham contracting arrangements, if he is about providing for genuine choice ... and there's a genuine reform of the legislation so there's an intersection with sound tax law then I think that's a good start."

John Howard dedicated a separate policy platform to contractors in the 2004 election campaign, which he said reflected "the ever increasing contribution that independent contractors make to our economy".

Hobart telecommunications engineer and independent contractor Scott Bailey-Stewart said protecting Australia's independent contractors was a smart and necessary move considering the country's skills crisis. Mr Bailey-Stewart, an independent contractor for the past 10 years, believes strong laws to support independent contractors are essential for the Australian labour market.

"Independent contracting is really a win-win situation for workers and companies," he said. "It's a flexible approach to the workforce and is essential considering we have a skills crisis in this country."

After working for Telecom (now Telstra), Austel and Hydro Tasmania, Mr Bailey-Stewart - a telecommunications engineer - quit to start up on his own as an independent contractor in 1997. "There's no way I could be an employee any more."

Source





Labor makes its bid to win back ute-man

Sole contractors are doing all right, and Labor knows it

The ALP has finally admitted what happened to the legions of hard-working tradesmen and women who once formed the backbone of the party. They have struck out to become independent contractors and the aspirational heart of Middle Australia. Unfortunately for the ALP, they have become increasingly loyal to John Howard. This recognition is implicit in Craig Emerson's admission that Labor will retain the Coalition's new independent contractor laws. Dr Emerson's position represents a welcome change in thinking from the ALP, away from the class-war rhetoric that workers are the victims of capitalism rather than its beneficiaries.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd set the framework to recapture Labor's lost workers with the appointment of Dr Emerson as frontbench spokesman for the service economy, small business and independent contractors. Dr Emerson said the ALP acknowledged people's right to choose how they organised themselves in the workplace, whether it be through the trade union movement, as genuine independent contractors or in small business.

However, yesterday's concession on independent contractors was not without caveat. Labor has pledged to better define in law what constitutes a sham contract, designed to force workers to become independent contractors against their will. The Coalition has already recognised the need for safeguards in this area, including amendments to its original bill. The changes seek to avoid the misrepresentation of employment terms as an independent contracting arrangement. The Coalition amendments prohibit employers from forcing workers to become independent contractors by making false statements. There are also penalties for dismissing or threatening to dismiss a person for the sole or dominant purpose of engaging them as an independent contractor to perform substantially the same work.

Dr Emerson says these safeguards do not go far enough and require clarification. However, Labor has finally admitted that the shift in Australia's employment profile towards contract workers has not been a one-way street where evil bosses have foisted unwelcome new arrangements on their workers. In fact, while employers like the arrangements because they can reduce paperwork and associated on-costs, sole contractors overwhelmingly prefer the arrangements because they are more flexible, profitable and tax-effective.

Labor's pitch to recapture ute-man is to be applauded. The ACTU has offered muted support, subject to having detailed discussions with Dr Emerson on the issue. Ultimately, the devil will be in the detail. Small business must also be alert to Labor's plan to arm contractors with simplified legal remedies for allegedly unfair contracts. As the unfair dismissal laws have shown, legal remedies that are simple and easy to access for disgruntled and vexatious employees can be an overly expensive and productivity-sapping measure for small business owners. But adopting some of the definitions of sham contract arrangements already contained within the Taxation Act, as recommended by a government-majority House of Representatives report, appears reasonable. Dr Emerson's recognition of independent contractors acknowledges a system that is working well. It is hoped such thinking points the way to a broader reappraisal by Labor of its industrial relations approach, most notably the rollback of the Government's work choices legislation, which, like the independent contractor laws, is working well.

Source