From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: What's happening in Victorian and Federal politics 
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:04:35 GMT

phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>     Well, first the Victorian election is on October 3rd, designed I think to
>capture us all in the throes of post grand final euphoria. There are no TV ads;
>federal government passed legislation banning election ads in the electronic
>media, the rationale being that rich parties or individuals don't gain an
>advantage by their ability to buy more prime time advertising space.

Or rather, so that the incumbent government can decide when to bring
the ban into effect (by calling an election) and thus gain a tactical
advantage.

In the latest news, the High Court seems set to rule that certain key
sections of the Act are unconstitutional.  I haven't read the details
yet, but it *could* mean the reappearance of TV ads in Victoria.

>unions threatened a general strike. Some of his other policies include smashing
>all unions and privatising everything, including the adoption agency (I'm sure
>they would privatise oxygen if they new how to).

This makes the Liberals sound better than they really are.  I have
grave doubts as to how much resolve they have to carry out an
extensive privatization programme.  Greiner promised privatiztion
too; what's he done in NSW?  For once, I hope you're right.

>       Something else that has become an issue is that the Liberals refuse to
>release any details of their policies until after the election. It's a bit like
>selling your house to someone and then telling them what the price is, as
>someone wrote to "The Age" today.

The Liberals are in the process of releasing their policies now.

>       Yes they are still pushing the GST among other things. Hewson has made
>it clear that he supports everything the Kennett wants to do. John Howard
>opened the immigration debate again the other day by calling for (another)
>reduction in immigration levels, despite studies that show that immigration 
>creates jobs. Pure racism if you ask me. The Liberals are also talking about
>removing tariffs in another carefully conceived plan to lower unemployment. 

You are correct in rejecting the argument that free immigration costs
jobs; you are incorrect, however, in suggesting that free trade costs
jobs.  IMO, there is in principle no difference between restrictions
on the movement of goods and the movement of people.  Both are forms
of protectionism.

Howard is an incurable conservative.  Hewson, being an economist,
should know better.  It can't be denied, however, that most people
readily accept a link between immigration and unemployment, so the
Liberals may be playing on that.  Similarly, Labor is playing on an
imagined link between free trade and unemployment: Keating is telling
horror stories of what the Liberals' free trade policy would do to
the car industry.

>       Oh, and I just remembered, Hewson's grand plan to solve youth
>unemployment: lower the minimum wage to $3 an hour and abolish unemployment
>benefits.

I think Hewson's youth wage stinks.  If I find a job which pays $2 an
hour and I'd like to take it, what right does the government have to
tell me I'm not allowed to take it?  Minimum wage laws are a
violation of people's right of association.

>                                 Tony Hartin
>                                 International Socialist Organisation
>                                 Melbourne

I'm from Melbourne too.  You guys provide great entertainment on
Friday nights.  Will you be setting up your stall tonight?

To the person in Canada who started this: hope this gave you
something to balance against Mr Hartin's in-depth scholarly Marxist
analysis.

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian