This is not a reflection on other parts of his performance which have not been good. In fairness he inherited a lot from Bob Carr. Still as in other States and Fed the Opposition is pretty much hopeless.

I think Liberalism is going to its Use-By date. It is travelling very fast now to being a right wing rump run by extreme thinking. In the Global climate at present and the way Global politics is going, unfettered mining and the resultant pollution in processing to the end product will be constrained by the danger to the world environment. This movement has to get stronger as time goes on or the planet will not be livable. In the past without this constraint unfettered industry which the Libs believe in was viable. What was it hurting? And benefits were undeniable.

Future Oppositions will probably have to come from a major realignment of people’s thinking/philosophies.

The NSW Teacher’s Federation is no doubt rolling around the ground laughing and enjoying the delights of schadenfreude re. Della’s predicament.

Della Bosca is representative of the crook state of affairs in NSW: the man is a disgrace to his party.

If only NSW had an opposition.

For those with an interest in unfair dismissal laws – some comparisons

USA
The United States of America (‘USA’) has limited termination protection for employees. Employment contracts can contain protection expressly or implicitly through employer policies or employer representations. However, most non-union employees in the USA are employed under ‘employment at will’ contracts. These contracts retain employees for an indefinite period of time. Employers can dismiss employees at will for any lawful reason. In essence, the doctrine of employment at will enables an employer to terminate their employee for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. A reason is lawful providing it does not breach any express or implied terms of the employment contract or breach any employment protection statutes.

These statutes do not address dismissals, which under the WRA, are generally protected by unfair dismissal. The USA statutes only consider the equivalent to the Commonwealth’s unlawful dismissal protection. Unlawful dismissal aims to protect employees against being dismissed due to their sex, disability or other grounds. Unfair dismissal focuses upon protecting employees from dismissals which are unfair, unjust or unreasonable. USA employers can dismiss employees for any other reason, for example, if the employer does not like the employee’s car.

Australian employers with less than 100 employees or where the employee has been employed for less than six months will have the same power as USA employers under Work Choices to dismiss employees without reasons or with bad reasons. Otherwise, under the WRA employees are entitled to reinstatement, or compensation in lieu there of, if they demonstrate that they were unfairly dismissed.

GERMANY
Unlike Work Choices, German employers must provide reasons when ever they dismiss employees. In Germany the Civil Code[54] and the Protection Against Dismissal Act (the ‘PADA’) require all employers to provide their employees with reasons for their dismissal. Section 1 of the PADA requires all dismissals to be socially justified.

A significant difference between the Commonwealth and Germany is the access threshold to unfair dismissal. The Civil Code and s 23 of the PADA restrict unfair dismissal legislation to companies with five or more employees, not including vocational trainees and marginal part-time workers. Between October 1996 and January 1999 the threshold limit was lifted to 10 employees. This alteration in the threshold provided material for research into the effect of unfair dismissal protection on businesses. Research presented at the European Association of Labour Economist’s 2004 Conference found that there was no clear evidence that the alteration had any positive or negative impact on businesses.

CANADA
Canadian employees, who are employed on indefinite contracts and have not given their employers grounds for summary dismissal, cannot be dismissed without reasonable notice or a reasonable severance package. What constitutes reasonable notice is determined:

with reference to each particular case, having regard to the character of the employment, the length of service of the servant, the age of the servant, and the availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the servant.

In addition to the notice periods, Canadian employers cannot dismiss employees in bad faith. The Canadian Supreme Court has provided employers must act in good faith when dismissing employees. Writing for the majority in Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, Justice Iacobucci explained this requirement as:

at a minimum, I believe that in the course of dismissal employers ought to be candid, reasonable, honest and forthright with their employees and should refrain from engaging in conduct that is unfair or is in bad faith by being, for example, untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive.

If an employer breaches the doctrine of good faith, then they will be held to have dismissed the employee wrongfully. Damages for wrongful termination are awarded to place the employee in the same position as they would have been had reasonable notice been given. In Australia s 654 of the WRA entitles unfairly dismissed employees to reinstatement or damages in lieu of reinstatement. In Canada, wrongfully dismissed employees are only entitled to damages and have no entitlement to seek reinstatement.

Work Choices will require employees to have worked for an employer for six months before they are eligible for unfair dismissal. In Canada employees are eligible to claim a breach of the doctrine of good faith at any time. Indeed, it is not even necessary for an employment relationship to have developed! In Kilpatrick v Peterborough Civic Hospital an employee of 30 years standing had been approached over a six year period by a headhunting firm on behalf of a competitor.[66] The employee resigned and the competitor did not make an offer. Whilst the competitor had made no express inducements or offers, the competitor was held liable for not acting in good faith. The employee was awarded 30 months wages in damages

It will come down to “he said/ she said” and no real evidence to legally prove anything – something the msm – the terrorgraph in particular don’t worry about – unless they are ones in question.

Della Bosco and wife should be challenged etc on what occurred, but we are now into the 6th day of front page headlines etc. Did our involvement into the illegal iraqi war etc etc ever receive such intense coverage?

I think it was walter cronkite – the veteran US TV journalist, who when asked what he thought of the aussie media during a trip here in the 1960’s replied – “Too many reporters & not enough news ! ”

Well walter, we are getting virtually no news these days – just nonsense.