Orwellian language for a radical project;
Coalition’s INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS rewrite

by Rob Durbridge*

You can spot the Howard government’s perceived weaknesses by their use of Orwellian language to cover their tracks. Thus the recent advertising blitz to promote new IR legislation addresses public opinion findings which are negative in the extreme.

The ACTU’s focus groups composed mainly of nonunionists found that once the changes were explained not only were they not supported but unions were expected to fight hard for the rights of their members. Presumably the government found the same lack of support, prompting the grandiose full-page advertisements entitled ‘More Jobs, Higher Wages’. The government has been on a rare back foot to address public concerns given that it assumes the unpopularity of unions. In reality the public support for unions looking after their members’ interests has been continually rising in recent years, a surprising mirror to the decline in the rate of unionisation itself. Many non-unionists questioned say they would belong to a union if they could or if they were asked. Those findings encouraged the unions to contribute to an expensive media campaign to frame the public debate rather than to rely on reactive industrial action in the first instance.

The advertising blitz the government has undertaken is being challenged as unauthorized spending, but no doubt will continue. The Howard government has proven adept at forging ahead with unpopular measures, in part due to the eakness of its opposition both in parliament and in the community. Eventually public opinion forced policy change on East Timor, but not yet on Iraq. On industrial relations the appointment of a special taskforce headed by Andrew Robb promises much more in the way of spin than we have thus seen. This will include wedge politics to split unions from the ALP, building on the unpopularity of enterprise bargaining by the Keating government. However, many unions which opposed these changes have come to live with and thrive under the collective bargaining system. The very assumption on which the government is proceeding: that it has an electoral mandate for these changes, is undermined by the fact that they are unpopular and too radical even for some of its own supporters. Some on the extreme Right can see the strategic problems posed by a centralist reform bill which removes the role of state jurisdictions by use of the Corporations Power. They warn that a future Labor government could use the power at the behest of unions.

A number of academic commentators have criticised the assertions in the government’s advertising. Seventeen leading academic researchers in IR jointly released a paper which said:

‘On the basis of our considered analysis, the proposed changes will do nothing to address labour and skills shortages or the productivity Orwellian language for a radical project; coalition’s industrial relations rewrite slowdown. This will, however, damage the fabric of Australian society by encouraging poorly-paid jobs with irregular hours and little security, worsening work-family balance. The focus of Federal government policy is to give employers power over employees instead of promoting innovative solutions based on workplace partnerships.’

Full papers and summaries are published at http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/wos/IRchangesreportcard/

Some of the government’s assertions are deliberately misleading truths, such as the claim that ‘workers on AWAs currently earn 13% more than workers on certified agreements’. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics which is the source of this information pointed out that their figures included senior managers and bureaucrats, including those in the Federal public service which the government required to sign AWAs to obtain their positions. The ABS also pointed out that their figures included payment for 6% more hours than those on collective agreements. When those distortions were removed, those on collective agreements were earning more, despite the fact that AWAs have often been used to buy out other conditions such as leave.

While statements may in themselves be true, it is often in what is not said in the advertisements which is crucial. For example, to assert that there will be four standards for leave and ordinary working hours guaranteed by legislation ignores the fact that these will become the only guaranteed rights for many workers, whereas currently awards and agreements provide a comprehensive range of protections which vary in standard according to industry, skills and qualifications.

The new Australian Fair Pay Commission may well adjust minimum wages but that does not amount to a safety...

The new Australian Fair Pay Commission may well adjust minimum wages but that does not amount to a safety net as is currently provided by the award system. The central rationale for the government’s changes is to displace awards and collective agreements with Australian Workplace Agreements which are negotiated on an individual basis. While they are claimed to be ‘simpler and easier’ than the award system, the main point is ignored; they represent a legislated power shift in the workplace towards employers, not to deregulation. This will be particularly so in non-unionised industry. Where workers are conscious of their rights and highly unionised, they will still be able to conclude collective arrangements, subject to much more stringent limits on the role of unions and to the capacity to override collective agreements and awards by AWAs.

But where unions are weak, either in a militant sense or a membership sense, workers will be subject to one of the most pro-business legislative schemes in any developed economy. So it will be those like the woman portrayed in the ACTU’s advertising who works casually in an area of precarious employment whose standards of pay and conditions will be most threatened, including by lack of protection against unfair dismissal. That reflects another aspect which has drawn some comment: that the new laws will support employers whose business acumen or lack of investment has meant that they may not deserve to be propped up by the long arm of government against other businesses who may have managed their affairs better. By making their workers the sacrificial lambs in that equation may draw opposition not only from them but from effective businesses as well. The Howard laws may prove to be a nanny-state solution for inefficient employers who do not deserve to survive. There is a case for reform of industrial relations: the multiplicity of jurisdictions, the prevalence of legal technicality and cost, as well as irrational and wasteful processes.

But to proceed down the road of reform on the basis of a radical shift in the century-old settlement which established Australia’s ‘new province for law and order’ may prove difficult even for the ascendant Howard government. The settlement has proven enduring and resilient at times of stress and challenge before. In essence the system is based on the surrender of rights by organised labour and by employers in the interests of preventing and settling industrial disputes in a quasijudicial and peaceful manner. It has managed to combine the provision of rights with compulsory procedures, and allow the conflict between capital and labour to be mediated. To embark now on the rewriting of that settlement, when the economy is fuelled by high demand for Australian resource exports and employment is strong, is a challenging project. This is not a change which can be managed with xenophobia or fear of violent revolution which characterised the Cold War. It is a change which potentially affects virtually every family in the land and so brings with it the potential to shift public opinion in every part of the electorate.

It is a campaign which trade unions can mount, but which cannot be won by them alone. In the end it is a change to the workplace culture of all Australians and it is those people who at the next Federal poll will be called upon to determine the issue. Even though the Senate cannot be turned over immediately, the defeat of the Coalition would mean that the prosecution of an agenda common enough in the 19th century would be set back again in the 21st.

In the end it is a change to the workplace culture of all Australians and it is those people who at the next Federal poll will be called upon to determine the issue.

* Rob Durbridge is Federal Secretary of the Australian Education Union.