Rudd's conservative drivel

OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd's claims to be as economically conservative as Prime Minister John Howard are absolute drivel.

Any examination of his policies show Rudd is a walking contradiction. He says he wants to boost the economy on one side of the continent but at the same time he has said he wants to implement policies that will destroy jobs and careers propelling a boom on the other shore.

Take his support for Gunns Ltd's proposed $2 billion timber pulp mill which he delivered to CMFEU forestry workers in Tasmania on Monday.

There's no doubt the Tasmanian economy in particular needs a boost (no matter what Australian Greens leader Bob Brown may say) and there may be 2000 to 3000 jobs involved in the construction phase and a substantial number of long-term positions when it comes on line.

But Rudd's support for the Tasmanian workers has to be measured against his promise to tear up the AWAs which have underpinned the jobs of tens of thousands of workers in the mining industry in Western Australia and Queensland.

Of course, Rudd's attempt to appease his union puppeteers won't just affect people in those jobs in those states, as Richard Evans, chief executive officer of the Franchise Council of Australia, noted in The Australian earlier this month.

Abolition of AWAs, as Rudd has pledged, will push up the price of everything you buy, particularly on weekends. It will reduce the level of service as staff numbers are cut, it will make it impossible for you to receive the services you now get at times you want them, or make them more expensive.

Unemployment, and especially youth unemployment, will increase.

And again, Rudd is bowing and scraping before the might of the thuggish CMFEU bosses.

This craven obeisance before those who actually call the shots for the ALP was highlighted by the release yesterday of a study of the building industry prepared by reputable econometric firm Econtech.

It must be noted this was not the first such study produced by Econtech. An earlier work comparing cost differences between commercial and residential buildings in 2003 found work for commercial structures cost an average of 10 per cent more than domestic residential housing. This difference was mainly attributed to differences in work practices.

The study was criticised by CMFEU-sponsored scribblers, who argued that the cost gap was due to structural factors, not restrictive work practices.

Unfortunately for the CMFEU and the ALP, but not the average Aussie consumer, yesterday's study shows that the findings of those union theorists don't hold up.

Though the cost gap averaged 10.7 per cent in the 10 years to the end of 2002, it has since closed dramatically, to be only 1.7 per cent at the beginning of this year.

This is just not consistent with union claims that the cost gap was due to structural factors - but it does support the Econtech report's view that restrictive labour practices have been to blame.

Therefore, it will come as no surprise that the shrinkage in the cost gap coincided with the introduction of the Australian Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and its predecessor the Building Industry Taskforce, which had its genesis in the Cole Royal Commission's findings that the building and construction industry was characterised by widespread disregard for the law.

Since then there has been a significant reduction in days lost in the industry due to industrial action, less abuse of occupational health and safety issues for industrial purposes, proper management of OH&S issues, proper management of inclement weather procedures, improvement of rostering arrangements (additional flexibility in rostering has effectively increased the number of working days per year); and there have been cost savings stemming from the prohibition on pattern bargaining.

Now, remember the howls from the trade union thugs when Commissioner Cole started lifting the lid on their standover tactics and understand Rudd has said he plans to dump the ABCC by 2010, in yet another pay-off to the trade union czars.

It is ironic then that the Opposition Leader plans to stage a major stunt on housing affordability in Canberra today, with a conference to which all the usual suspects have been called, when he could lock-in lower cost housing by endorsing AWAs and supporting the good work of the ABCC.

He will reject the proven guarantees of cheaper housing however because the trade union movement is anxious to regain the power it has lost under the Howard Government.

An economic conservative would have ensured that the economic benefits delivered by AWAs and the proven success of the ABCC are locked in and will continue to deliver for all Australians.

But Rudd has placed his union constituency before all others and has pledged to lift the restrictions on their activities and make it easier for them to gouge Australians consumers and make housing, and all services, less affordable.

This is not a recipe for alternate government. It is the recipe for economic disaster.