My vote of thanks supported the need to do more than restore the Australian Building & Construction Commission and amend the Registered Organisation legislation to reduce corruption within the union movement. I also expressed regret that when Opposition Leader Turnbull had decided not to vote against the Fair Work legislation initiated by Gillard when she was PM.

In the full text of his address, Abetz makes a number of points relevant to the recognition of the unionism of Shorten and the need for reform, including the following:

• Kimberley Kitching, who is the replacement nominee for the retired Senator Conroy and was “championed” by Shorten, “was found by the Fair Work Commission to have provided false evidence on a number of occasions (something that eminently qualifies her to be a Labor Senator)”;
• If given the chance, Shorten says “he would govern our nation like a trade union boss”;
• Officials of the Western Australian Branch of the Maritime Union of Australia, publicly admired by Shorten, are “regularly before criminal and civil courts for significant breaches, including for assault in addition to harassing workers with ‘scab’ posters and other breaches of the Fair Work Act”;
• Shorten has effected “sleazy deals doing the low paid workers out of pay for self or trade union enrichment”;
• His (Abetz’s) engagement in considerable negotiations with cross bench senators, some successful, showed it is possible to obtain agreement to legislative changes;
• When Labor was in office Shorten extended “misconceived favours” to the MUA which have resulted in a considerable reduction in the number of major Australian registered ships and in their share of Australian freight. Reform in that area has not yet been started but needs urgent attention;
• On the basis of advice received before the 2013 election that there was “reform fatigue”, it was decided to limit the proposed reforms for that election.

The final paras of his address are as follows:

“It is vital that the Government advance workplace reform as a top tier priority if it is to achieve its stated desire of pursuing jobs and growth. The hard yards have been done, we have two large reports that don’t only recommend change but make an unassailable case why that change is imperative. And, I can attest, there is a Department of professional and dedicated men and women who could implement this agenda. All that is needed is the political will. A failure of determination will have a lasting effect on our economy, on employers but above all on workers and their families who will be denied a self-sustaining work opportunity. Encouraged by the luminaries of the H. R. Nicholls Society, I will continue to agitate for such vital reform”.

The Weekend Australian report also refers to the promise made by Turnbull, after the Heydon Royal Commission report was published early this year, that the government would publish an assessment. Employment Minister, Michaela Cash, said then that it would “try to implement the overwhelming majority of the Heydon royal commission recommendations”. No such assessment has been released but Cash told a Senate Committee earlier last week that the government planned to introduce reformative legislation next year (see this report by Workplace Express).

Abetz’s address shows that he retains considerable expertise on workplace relations and it makes a strong case for the Coalition to propose a more comprehensive set of reforms in the current Fair Work arrangements even though it would be difficult to get changes through the Senate even with the support of One Nation, whose workplace relations representative, Senator Malcolm Roberts, told the HR Nicholls conference that they would be supportive. Roberts has been given access to the secret document submitted to the government by the Royal Commission. If reformist proposals are backed by justified reasoning and examples of union misbehaviour that should attract public support.

The address to the conference by Victorian Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, Robert Clark, provided added support to the case for reforms which reduce the capacity of unions to obtain increases in wages and/or conditions of employment that are not justified for those employed by state governments or their agencies. He gave numerous examples of “concessions” obtained by unions in Victoria which use their political relationships with the Labor government and its ministers ( including Premier Andrews) and threats of various types of disruptions if such concessions are not granted. Clark referred particularly to the dispute over the attempts to exercise union control  over the country fire volunteers and to stop Boral providing cement to construction projects in Melbourne. He praised the decision of the then Labor Minister Garrett to refuse to kow-tow to union pressure on fire volunteers as an example of obtaining public/media support when the lack of substance of union claims is revealed.

Other speakers at the conference spoke in support of a lesser set of regulatory arrangements that allow or require managements of businesses to be more involved. Judith Sloan argued that the attempt in the legislative changes made by Peter Reith to encourage enterprise bargaining has failed and that, outside governments and large businesses, such bargaining agreements are no longer the first choice. I suggested that what had happened was a restoration under the Fair Work arrangements of the centralised intervention system whose role Reith had tried to markedly reduce and that major changes needed to be made to the Fair Work arrangements to put businesses in a position where they are able to prevent union disruptions if they do not have all their demands met.

It also suggests that if anything Turnbull has lost potential Coalition supporters even since he obtained a double dissolution. As a hitherto consistent Liberal voter, experienced conservatist journalist Tom Switzer wrote in yesterdays’ Sydney Morning Herald (see Switzer on Turnbull) that:

“What’s different about Turnbull is that he has not actually done anything to explain his rapid downhill trajectory. He is no Paul Keating or Campbell Newman, legislating unpopular big-bang reforms in the national interest or spending cuts to rein in budget deficits as far as the eye can see. Contradicting himself almost every week, Turnbull has stood fast in indecision. He has been consistently indecisive”.

A prime example is his failure to espouse a definitive national security policy, as indicated by Greg Sheridan in the article below. His early naïve venture into arguing that the terrorist threat from extremist Islamists has nothing to do with religion has been only very slightly modified and unlike Abbott he has not sought to push for an increased role for Australian troops in Iraq/Syria. Further, although the attempt by five Australian to travel by boat to Syria offered an opportunity to announce a further tightening of counter-terrorist laws, he has had nothing of substance to say about the extent of the obvious extremism involved. While he is also reputed to have a “flexible” view on the treatment of refugees, it seems that it is only because the bipartisan policy agreed with Shorten is under attack within the Labor Party that he has emerged in public support of not allowing refugees to cross our borders by boats.

Other policy problems with Turnbull’s own party include workplace relations where he has made only limited use of the Heydon Royal Commission and, despite supporting the passage of tougher regulatory legislation on (mainly) the construction industry which allowed him to have a double dissolution, he has not taken advantage of the obvious need for major reform of the whole field of regulatory legislation covering workplace relations. His record here is bad in that when Opposition Leader he refused to vote against the Gillard government’s union-favoured legislation. A not dissimilar attitude exists on climate change, where having accepted the mainly National’s view that to become PM he should not change what Abbott had done, he has made only very limited criticism of the extraordinary proposals by Labor let alone the Greens. As I have previously mentioned, the idea that renewable energy should provide 50% of energy by 2030 should be attacked on practical grounds as well as being not required.

It remains to be seen whether further polling will force Turnbull to adopt policies more consistent with the views of the conservative wing of the Coalition. A further deterioration along the lines of the Morgan Poll could well lead to an internal revolt unless that is done. A lot could happen to Coalition policies in the next six weeks, particularly if the budgetary analysis by Treasury/Finance in ten days time reveals an opportunity for the Coalition to exploit the outlook provided by Labor’s future budgets and their composition (assuming sufficient data is provided by it). Instead of reviewing Backpacker’s licences (as announced today) Turnbull needs to announce that (for example) in government he will review (or better still) reduce the regulation of workplace relations ie as Switzer suggested, he needs some intended big-bang reforms.

Malcolm Turnbull has been prepared to risk forcing a double dissolution to obtain a vote by both houses sitting together on legislation to pass the Registered Organisations bill and to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That body was abolished under the Gillard government in May 2012 and replaced by  Fair Work Building & Construction with much reduced regulatory powers. Turnbull also secured the winding up of the Roads Safety Remuneration Tribunal established under Gillard at the behest of the Transport Workers union and effectively designed to favour unions able to collude with transport companies.

Today’s The Australian has run several letters  supporting the actions by the Turnbull government which, if successful in the election, will  significantly reduce the unjustified power obtained by unions under the regulatory arrangements  applying mainly to the construction industry. But the Fair Work Commission itself, which was also established by the Gillard government, has allowed its regulations applying to other industries to also favour unions. The restoration of the ABCC would not provide any significant improvement in those industries.

The Letters Ed has rather strangely titled the letters “It could take years for the economy to change course” but such a title is certainly relevant to the arrangements  that would be applied under the Fair Work Commission. The letter which I wrote, and which is published below, refers to the FWC and suggests that Turnbull should propose reforms to the arrangements which that body administers in regard to industries outside the construction industry.

Relevant here is the findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, a section on which was omitted from my  letter. When that body’s final report was published the Minister for Employment, Michaelia Cash, wrote an article in The Australian indicating that “This government will take firm and swift action to act on the findings and 79 recommendations in the final report”. However, while Turnbull himself promised that a response to the Commission would be forthcoming, no attempt has yet been made to indicate other reforms are justified by it. Given that Turnbull has been subject to criticism for failing to establish an economic policy, a policy of further extensive reforms to workplace relations would fit well as part of such a policy and would have the potential to put Shorten on the back foot.

The US in Iraq/Syria

The Australian also reports that the US has, for the first time, sent a B52 bomber to help Iraq attack IS in Mosul. This follows the announcement by US Defence Secretary to send extra US troops there and an involvement of US commandoes with Kurdish forces (see The US in Iraq/Syria).

It appears that active preparations are being made for an attack on Mosul and that the US will be providing support, although not “troops on the ground”  because, while Obama claimed recently that IS is on the defensive,  he continues to oppose activating troops. The increase in activity follows a meeting by Carter with the Saudis and an attempt by him to persuade members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to play a more active role (see US in Syria/Iraq).

This situation provides an opportunity for Turnbull to establish a more active Australian role in circumstances where the US is increasing its role in a cause that is in our interests.

Earth Day

Earth Day occurs on April 22 and is widely used to promote the alleged need for governments to take measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It will be the day when those countries which pledged in Paris last December to reduce emissions formally sign the agreement in New York.

I have previously pointed out that, if the pledges are met, there will actually be an increase of 23% in emissions by the main emitters by 2030, mainly originating from China and India. As far as I am aware this has not been publicised and doubtless there will be celebrations in the media of the “success” of the Paris meeting and a repetition of claims that the recent increase in global temperatures confirmed the need for action. However this increase accompanied the El Nino and with the end of that natural phenomenon has already started to fade.

MEDIA RELEASE – The HR Nicholls Society

19 September 2015

Employment Grows Faster than Budget Forecast

The August ABS Labour Force figures show an encouraging growth of 2.0% s.adj in employment over the past twelve months. This is faster than the 2015-16 budget forecast (1.5%) and than the growth in the working age population of 1.5%. This means that there has been a significant increase (2.2%) in the participation rate ie the proportion of the working age population which is employed or actively looking for work.

Labour Force – Increases Since August 2014

This confirms that the pick-up in the economy is being sustained. Particularly significant is that the states adversely affected by the mining slow down (Western Australia and Qld) have experienced increases in employment. Only Victoria had a reduction.

Although the unemployment rate has fallen slightly to 6.2% (S adj), the much more important test is whether the growth in employment is keeping up with the working age population increase. This is the case.

However, the under-utilisation rate of 14% indicates that there remains a major unsatisfied demand for work.

Changes must be made to the existing regulatory legislation, and the administration of it, to remove the bias against employers evident in the existing arrangements. The reforms needed will be discussed at the XXXVI Annual Conference of the HR Nicholls Society entitled “The Fair Work Act – an Australian idiosyncrasy” to be held in Melbourne on Wednesday 23rd of September at Roy Morgans in Collins St. Speakers include: Mr Tony Shepherd, chairman, WestConnex Delivery Authority, past president of Business Council of Australia and Stuart Barklamb, Executive Director, Australian Mines and Metals Association.

Contact: M Moore on 0403 345 546

Publicity Officer: Des Moore (9867 1235)

MEDIA RELEASE – The HR Nicholls Society

8 February 2015

Unemployment Up 0.4% since last January

The unemployment rate of 6.4% (s adj) in January is 0.4 percentage point higher than it was in January 2014 as was the unadjusted figure of 6.8%. Moreover, the increase of employment of only 1.6% over the past year continues to fail to keep pace with the growth in the working age population of 1.8%.

Given the slower growth in the economy, which the Reserve Bank expects to slow further in the lead up to the election, it is clear that the regulatory arrangements (wage awards and other regulations) are pushing unemployment higher.

These developments in the labour market emphasise the need for deregulation of workplace relations and the establishment of a much more flexible market.

Although the growth in wages is now no higher than inflation, Australia’s wages have been growing faster than in developed countries, resulting in reduced competitiveness. While the reduction in the exchange rate will help offset that, that is not the best way of improving competitiveness

Publicity Officer: Des Moore (9867 1235)

• The aim must be not simply to consider whether there should be a new leader but to pass a resolution requiring a major policy statement to be presented by whoever the  government leader is in 2 weeks time. This should cover, inter alia, policies to be pursued henceforth on the budget, workplace relations, climate change, and counter-terrorism. A policy statement along these lines may be the only hope of restoring lost polling on a sustained basis;
• The principal theme should be that Australia unavoidably faces considerably slower economic growth, that this could continue for some time, and that it requires a sharing of the burden by the existing population who have benefited from the commodities boom, not an increase in government borrowing;
• This outlook reinforces the need to reduce government spending, and this should focus on where higher income groups can afford to receive reduced benefits (and where it is not timely to increase childcare benefits);
• The government will make every effort to reduce employment costs facing businesses, including by making submissions to the Fair Work Commission to (further) reduce penalty rates and other restrictive measures and by taking action in ordinary courts to stop disruptive action by unions. Critical attention will be given by the government to the capacity of unions to exercise disruptive powers and to the adverse economic effects this is having. There will be an increased focus on the risk of electing a union-dominated Labor party;
• An indication that, as in some past periods and in the last 16 years temperatures have not been increasing when carbon dioxide emissions have been, no new measures will be taken to reduce usage of fossil fuels and that subsidies for more costly renewable energies will be phased out;
• A confirmation that Australia is a country which accepts western values only, that sharia law is not applicable here, and that additional counter-terrorist measures will be presented to Parliament to further minimise the risk of extremist activity here. (Note that in an election year the Canadian government has just introduced “sweeping” legislation expanding the powers of the Canadian Intelligence Service to actively intervene in threatened terrorist action).
• Whatever the outcome of the spill motion, for the kind of reasons given in The Australian editorial below there should be no return to  Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Coalition (and nor should he be appointed Treasurer as suggested in the editorial). If there is to be a change of leadership, it needs to be to a person prepared to make a major policy statement along the lines indicated.
• The statement should include assurances that the government leader will increase his  consultation with ministers and that ministers will increase their consultations with the bureaucracy. The recent consultation with the Reserve Bank Governor and the new Treasury Secretary on the economic outlook was welcome news but should have happened before.

To emphasis again, the consideration of the spill motion should not only determine who is to be the leader but should include a resolution calling for a major policy statement.

This is where the speech failed. There is  precious little on necessary changes or improvements in specifics and even backward steps about other specifics.

The bottom line is that, unless a much improved approach emerges from the current Cabinet discussions, any improvement in LNP polling is unlikely, as it is for Abbott himself. Because there is no obvious alternative leader it will take time for one to emerge. But if bad polling continues for the LNP one will emerge before long.

Following are my comments on specifics including some responses to questions after the speech:

• The promise to tackle the people and organisations that justify terrorism is welcome, but we wait for detail;
• The reiteration that there will be no carbon tax, and the reference to Shorten’s promise to have one, is also useful. But no indication was given that action will be taken to seriously question the dangerous global warming thesis;
• The ruling out of any change in existing workplace relations regulatory arrangements, including the Fair Work Commission, appeared to cover any recommendations from the Productivity Cn inquiry, implying that it will not be an issue at the next election ie under an Abbott government there would be no change to the employment destroying minimum wage determined by the FWC and, while Abbott correctly pointed out that employment grew faster in 2014 than 2013, unemployment has risen and employment growth has not kept pace with the growth in the working age population. Hence under Abbott to date we have higher unemployment and increased drop outs from the working age population;
• Although emphasising the need to reduce taxation and the budget deficit, the references to specific items suggests the announced abandonment of the parental leave scheme will be replaced by increased spending on child care and, while the small business jobs package will involve reduced taxation of such businesses, there are no new specifics on reduced spending and it appears lower taxation will increase the budget deficit  and involve more government interventionism.

Some argue that the “success” of the anti-austerity movement in Europe now make it more difficult to run here a policy of lower spending. But some European countries and the US have improved their budgets, with the use of examples of why people in higher incomes should not normally receive government assistance, and with examples of absurd assistance in Europe, it should not be beyond the capacity of an LNP to successfully argue the case here. In fact, given the failure to do so with the current budget, there is now a need for the Coalition to do it;

• As Peter Reith points out in the article below, it is puzzling as to why Abbott needed to refer to situations in which  possible changes are made to the GST;

It is a pity that Abbott’s promise to adopt a more collegial approach with colleagues (and not to announce knights himself) was not made in his address but in an answer to a journalist’s question. If he had engaged in more self-criticism, and indicated changes to his office and Cabinet arrangements, that would have produced a more favourable response. It may now be too late.

Former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Peter Reith, argues below that the Coalition has reached the point where it needs to take more risks with its policies. Reith has some experience in

alleviating  Senate opposition. By negotiating with the Democrats he secured important reforms in labour market regulatory arrangements when the Howard government was in office in the late 1990s. While it is now too late in the current electoral period to obtain any such changes, a decision to outline problems with existing arrangements and needed major changes could create a situation in which the horrific defects in Labor’s union armour would be pinpointed both politically and economically –but also fairly. The current strategy of waiting for a Productivity Commission review restricts the Coalition’s capacity in attacking obvious defects in current arrangements which occur almost every day. Some of these have already been identified in the interim report of the Heydon Royal Commission. Why not make use of that report?

Reith’s close involvement in developing the Coalition’s early 1990s FIGHTBACK reform proposals is also relevant. While their radical nature (including a 15% GST) did result in a swing against the Coalition in the 1993 election,  their comprehensiveness provided a framework for future liberal policies. A comprehensive explanatory document of the rationale of budget proposals, with necessary amendments, might now be used to expose  the defects in the opposition line taken in the Senate ie such a document would be a political one, not one written by the Treasury.

Importantly, such a document could provide a basis for attacking Labor’s attitude in the Senate. The current approach concentrates on negotiations with the independents but should be accompanied by such an attack.

The release from archives of the 1988-89 budget papers and the commentary on them provide an opportunity. As noted in the article by Economic Editor Uren, “in just the one year of 1988-89, the Hawke government achieved savings three times greater than those planned by the Abbott government over the next three years, as it sought to reduce Australia’s foreign borrowing.”

Uren also refers to the article by former Treasury secretary, John Stone. He quotes Stone’s  comment to him (apparently made at the archives release) that Labor’s performance from 1987 through to 1990 was “extraordinary”. “Compared with the shambles we have today in our fiscal affairs,” Stone said, “it is worth remembering that in these three years the Labor Party not only produced three budget surpluses, which you can do in all sorts of ways, but they also did it by actually cutting government spending.”  In fact, spending fell by 2.1 per cent of GDP in 1988-89 alone and by 4.1 per cent of GDP over a three-year period.

What form might an attack on Labor take? It could include:

• A list of Labor’s proposals in 1988-89 that were supported, or substantially so, by the Coalition ie a demonstration of bipartisan ship then;
• A list of  the Coalition’s current proposals which have been rejected by Labor.  I surmise it would show very little bipartisanship cf 1980s;
• An analysis of budgetary comments by Shadow Treasurer Bowen and Shadow Finance Minister Burke (did anyone know he holds that position?). I surmise this would show that if Labor had its way  there would be little or no reduction in the deficit outlook. Of particular interest would be whether Burke has said anything of substance and a comparison made with the initiatives taken by Finance Minister Peter Walsh in the 1980s.

In short, such an “attack”  might centre on “we did this in the 1980s why haven’t you been bipartisan in the national interest now”.

MEDIA RELEASE – The HR Nicholls Society

11 December 2014

The unemployment rate of 6.3% (s adj) has reached a 12-year high, increasing slightly from the previous month.

However, data reveals a modest improvement in the labour market as employment rose by 42,700 (0.4%) in November 2014. Despite this, the growth of 1.5% in demand for labour over the past 12 months is still failing to keep pace with the growth in the working age population of 1.8%.

Youth unemployment has also continued to increase significantly. In November 2013 the unemployment rate for persons aged 15 to 19 years was 16.5%. The latest figures show the rate to have risen considerably to 20.1%. February 1997 was the last time that youth unemployment was greater than what it is today. Such a record high level indicates poor employment prospects for first-time job seekers.

Additionally, the Australian labour market is also faced with the issue of growing underemployment. The labour force underutilisation rate for November 2014 is 15.0%, the highest rate since November 1997. This increase is largely due to the growth in part-time employment in comparison to full-time employment. The latest figures show that while part time employment increased by 40,900 in November full time employment increased by 1,800.

These developments in the labour market emphasise the need for deregulation of workplace relations and the establishment of a much more flexible market.

Publicity Officer: Des Moore (9867 1235)

Nobody would deny that Abbott and his Ministers and staff need a holiday. But what sort of a holiday?

Obviously, with Parliament not sitting again until early February there will be a holiday from the day to day debates over legislation and fewer incidents that occur here and overseas will require immediate ministerial reactions: in short, we may temporarily experience less “government”! I recall past experience which provided only “emergency” communication arrangements for Acting PMs at a beach house, including one at a beach which I still frequent at Malua Bay.

In present domestic and international circumstances, not to mention increased media attention, it may be difficult to repeat such a relaxed holiday.  Consider.

First, there is an opportunity and a widely recognised need for a reshuffle of ministers, including some new starters. That would likely take some time and energy. Although Abbott has publicly supported the retention of Hockey as Treasurer, the most obvious need is to shift him out of the Treasurer position but, contrary to many observers, in my view not to replace him with Turnbull. In his handling of the ABC Turnbull has demonstrated little capacity to be the “tough” minister now desperately needed as Treasurer.

The imminent formal announcement that former deputy John Fraser will take over as Treasury Secretary, and with Michael Thawley already started as the new head of Prime Minister’s department, adds to the need for a consistently tough Treasurer who can handle the detail involved. In due course he would find strong support from these two key public service positions and have the potential to present stronger arguments on the national interest need for reducing government spending. As economic circumstances have deteriorated since Abbott started in government, handling the budget problem is now more difficult and requires both a tough PM as well as a tough Treasurer.

Regrettably, Abbott has started his holiday on the wrong foot here. While his decision to prune the PPL is admirable, at the very least he should have indicated a net reduction in  expenditure not simply a switch of funding to nannies. Abbott’s behaviour suggests he needs a nanny to hold his hand before getting on his bike! A tough Treasurer, such as Morrison or Frydenberg backed by the two new public servants, could do that.

Second, while it is too late now to influence the content of the MYEFO due shortly, it is likely that a more extensive and improved explanation of the rationale of the budget, as well as the deterioration in the economic outlook and its effect on the budgetary position, will be needed before Parliament resumes.

Accordingly, once the MYEFO has been released Abbott should announce the move of Hockey (perhaps to Defence) and indicate that his new “team” will be working over the Christmas/New Year period with the aim of presenting such a report before Parliament resumes. That should include an explanation of the “fairness” of limiting spending mainly to those in groups with incomes which are relatively low but which have increased substantially in real terms over the last 20-25 years. It should also announce further reductions over time in expenditures that do not tally with the rationale along with an indication to the states that, in circumstances where the Commonwealth has budgetary difficulties and where the economic outlook has  deteriorated, they too need to expect less assistance. Reference could also be made to the example set by the Newman government in Queensland, which faced with high levels of spending by the Bligh Labor government has now succeeded in actual cuts.

Importantly, such a statement also needs to include an appeal to the Senate to cooperate in the national interest and an indication that the government is prepared to hold extensive discussions with Senators on how to eliminate the deficit without increasing taxation – which almost all agree should not occur. A reference to the Senate should include an indication that a failure to obtain Senate approval of expenditure reductions will necessitate a double dissolution before the next election ie it should imply that even if the polling is unfavourable to the government, closer to the election it would risk a DD that would risk the seats of the independent senators too.

Third, developments in Australia’s involvement in international discussions on global warming add weight to the need for Abbott to publish a government paper indicating the extent of uncertainties in the dangerous warming threat and why Australia is aiming to limit action to reduce usage of fossil fuels. The revelation that Bishop as well as Hunt and Turnbull in some way support reduced usage, albeit qualified by the need to have international agreement, adds to  business and community uncertainty about the government’s attitude, including on the use of renewables. That uncertainty is heightened by Obama’s speech at Queensland University during the G20 meeting. It has also been heightened by the failure of Treasury hitherto to present a factual appraisal, as well of course as the one-sided attitude of the ABC and Fairfax press, not to mention the UN and its affiliates. Given this one-sidedness in the face of extensive evidence supporting sceptics, there is a strong case for Abbott to commission a report on the uncertainties of the “science” and associated warmist analyses. There are ample numbers of scientists and others who could be commissioned, both in Australia and overseas. Such a commissioning should occur during the “holidays”.

Fourth, something also needs to be done to either commission the Productivity Commission to report on the regulatory arrangements on workplace relations or at a minimum to identify the well known concerns with those arrangements. With the help that would undoubtedly come from the Royal Commission’s interim report this month, it would be opportune to publish  a report before Parliament resumes on the problems with  arrangements that are very one-sided in favour of unions which now represent only a small proportion of the work force. The recent HR Nicholls submission to the RC provides examples of this one-sidedness and a government paper could start from there. Such a paper would help engender the debate that is needed about the role of unions.

Last but not least, there is a need to start a public debate on the threat from Muslim extremism in Australia and overseas. Here is a speech on this growing problem made by Geert Wilders in New York. Wilders heads a party in the Netherlands Parliament and, with difficulty, has spoken in Australia at the invitation of our Q Society (I reported recently on a function held by that Society which was addressed by a West Sudanese who had experienced slavery in the Muslim dominated East Sudan).

Wilders has spoken widely on this and he has undoubtedly influenced the 60% of the Dutch who he says now see the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War ll and Islam as the biggest threat today. Wilders views are regarded as extreme by some but are in line with many experts who have published on the issue (see in particular the recent book on  “Sacred Violence, Political Religion in a Secular Age” by Professors David Martin Jones of QUT and M.L.R. Smith of King’s College London).

Many accept the view that most Muslims are peace-loving and should be accepted as such. But note the following from Wilders speech:

“Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion.  Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’.  Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia.  If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies”.

This perspective is one which the government needs to recognise publicly and indicate that Australia does not accept.

In short, my belief is that Abbott’s holiday is likely to be a brief one – or at least should be in his and the nation’s interests.