How to Deceive the Public: Howard’s Industrial Relations Advertising

Nothing could be more deceptive, more fundamentally misleading, than Howard’s advertisements about his government’s Industrial Relations policy. Just one example: Across the top of the page a heading ’HIGHER WAGES’; in a box ’We Won’t Cut Award Wages’ and in the body of the advertisement ‘Wage rates previously contained within awards will be set by the Australian Fair Trade Commission’. There is not one word about why the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will lose its right and power to fix the minimum wage and why it is proposed that the power shifts to the proposed ‘Fair Trade Commission’. This is why: The Industrial Commission has during the whole period of the Howard government (and before that) had the power to fix the basic minimum wage and to apply it to awards. The Howard government has opposed the applications. The Commission has made orders granting increases that the government opposed. Here are the facts of the last two years: In 2004.the ACTU and a whole body of unions made application for an increase of $26.60 in what is now called ‘the safety net award rate of pay’. The application was opposed by all employer bodies who appeared (many), and all but one (the National Farmers’ Federation) supported some rise in the safety net rate. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry supported an increase of $10 per week and the application of that increase to all award rates up to a fixed trade rate. The Federal Government supported that view. The decision of the seven members of the Commission, given in a 100-page judgment which closely considered all the arguments advanced, was to increase the safety net by $19 per week, the increase to be applied to all award rates. The whole judgment is published and available. In 2005, the ACTU sought the same increase. All employers opposed that. The Australian Industry Group (and another employer) supported an increase of $11 per week. The Federal Government supported that view. The Commission, in a longer judgment, granted an increase of $17 per week in the safety net, to be applied to all awards. The judgment is published and available. I stress that the Commission is independent, does not just adopt the arguments of employers or employees, or governments and tries hard to balance the interests of both sides. State governments are also represented and put arguments, but in each case the increase awarded is not in accord with their submissions. And so the simple fact is that the Howard government thinks the awards are too high so it just proposes to change the authority—they just appoint a FAIR PAY COMMISSION. And, of course, those chosen will award less, not more or as much, and incidentally it affects every award because the increase is added to each award rate. These safety net increases occur because of increases in the costs of living (as the judgments of the Industrial Commission make clear). The advertisement should, more accurately, have the heading ‘Lower Wages’; and in the box ‘We will cut award rates’; and it should say why they propose to establish a Fair Pay Commission because the Industrial Commission makes orders with which our government (and employers) don’t agree.