Victorian Trades Hall Council. The voice of Victorian workers since 1856.

• Inside Trades Hall
•  > Secretary's Report
•  > 2008 Archives

Good IR Laws not in the tea leaves!

By Brian Boyd, VTHC Secretary 3 October 2008

After the latest outline of the Federal Government’s upcoming IR Laws (17/9), ardent, pro-employer national newspapers ran spirited editorials headed:

“Labour IR Stance shows promise”, (AFR 19/9) and “WorkChoices Lite – Julia Gillard’s policy is a step in the right direction”, (The Australian 22/9).

This from two newspapers who championed John Howard’s original WorkChoices legislation.

In the September/ October 2008 AFR Magazine under the section “Industrial Relations” (p109), veteran IR journalist Mark Sculley begins his report: “One of the great misconceptions about Australian politics is that the Rudd Government is abolishing WorkChoices. The new administration is, in fact, retaining most of it…”.

In the face of these endorsements and commentary however, IR Minister Gillard insists the ‘WorkChoices-lite’ description is ‘absurd’ (27/9).

The Federal IR Minister instead says the government has “got the balance right” and claims the ACTU TV ads running during Sept-Oct, are directed at the whole “parliament”, delivering fair IR laws.

Firstly, there is no chance of real balance, if the new laws only reverse 11 years of harsh IR laws by less than 20%!

Secondly, the ACTU Executive, when it endorsed the latest TV ads calling for a fairer collective bargaining regime, clearly had the government’s intentions in mind – not the parliament. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have always been the target audience!

Further, the proposals floated by the ALP government for IR don’t just have “gaps” in them. The outstanding issues are more significant.

For example, the proposed limitations on collective bargaining generally, the ability of workers to collectively organise, be represented by unions and be free to take industrial action in order to pursue agreements and issues of concern, is a fundamental issue.

Many workers in a wide range of industries and services, also deserve a strong independent umpire, who has the power to arbitrate, especially when employers procrastinate and undermine good faith bargaining.

It’s alright for new Liberal Party Malcolm Turnbull to say: “As far as the Coalition is concerned, WorkChoices is dead”, (29/9). Ten days earlier a media report (never denied) revealed that “staff” from Julia Gillard’s office have approached the Coalition to ensure that the deemed “WorkChoices-lite” legislation can get through the Senate, by-passing the independent Senators.

Julie Bishop said at the time: “In the face of that (the behind the scenes approaches), I’ve been quite astounded the Minister (Julia Gillard) descends into abuse and threats and personal denigration… there may be much in the [IR] Bill which we can support”.

This Punch and Judy charade continued after Turnbull gave his assurance of support, albeit qualified.

Julia Gillard attacked Turnbull saying: “We have heard the Liberal party say that WorkChoices is dead before…no matter what Mr Turnbull says, he cant hide the fact that his party remains committed to AWA’s …”.

Revisiting the AWA question is a spurious exercise as they have been dealt with via the preliminary bill (in March), however inadequately. Of more crucial importance to workers is the ability to regain genuine collective bargaining rights.

Turnbull tells the media he doesn’t want IR to be a major issue in 2010 (the next federal election). It will be, if the union movement cannot declare Howard’s IR legacy is essentially and measurably replaced with a new, fair system.

The ‘IR is dead’ scenario may be wishful thinking for Turnbull and Bishop and, by the looks of it, Rudd and Gillard. Is the converging of interests via the parliamentary voting process aimed at trying to neutralise the issue?

It may be so . The likes of Telstra, Virgin, Cochlear, Maxitrans and Pilbara Iron do not get their ongoing anti-worker bias from thin air. They get it from how they read the utterances of politicians, both public and in private.

The ACTU has expressed its “deep concern that the government is in danger of not fulfilling its commitments to restore rights at work and bring balance to workplaces” (26/9). The ACTU has said that Julia Gillard’s announcements on 17/9 “diverge” from the pre-election aim of seeing WorkChoices scrapped and a “fair “ system put in its place.

The ACTU predicts ‘enormous disappointment’ in the electorate if this expectation is not met.

This development is significant. Many in the union movement have been extremely worried about the content and detail of the proposed new IR laws for some time.

Over a year ago (August 07), Julia Gillard revisited the May 07 ALP National IR policy with amendments and additions, in a panic. Employer push back, pre- election, was beat-up by the media. Howard tried to water-down his draconian legislation with a bodgey ‘fairness test’. He was far too late and the electorate saw it for what it was at the time - a desperate move by a desperate man. Yet Gillard made changes that even back then, saw the term ‘WorkChoices-lite' start to emerge.

As an independent union movement we must not, should not feel trapped by these machinations. Our conscience is clear. We took industrial action, we marched in the streets, we campaigned hard in marginal seats, we fought for what was right. The federal government should give as much, if not more recognition of that contribution, than what is being generously afforded to the employers.

These are the same employers who marched off to Canberra with their specialist IR lawyers in the summer of 04-05, to help draft the updated draconian IR legislation soon after Howard won control of the Senate in the 2004 federal election. No call for equal worker/union representation at these deliberations, no mention of finding the “right balance” back in those days when WorkChoices and the ABCC were created.

Some people should be reminded of history.