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

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

IR ISSUE HOTS UP

1 August 2008
Brian Boyd, VTHC Secretary

The starting point for the trade union movement in the debate around the proposed substantive federal IR bill is not the IR section in the ALP policy announced in August 2007 before the last federal election. It is instead our own, independent trade union policy articulated consistently via the YR@W campaign during 2005-2006-2007, which called for the scrapping of Howard's IR laws in totaland replaced by a fair and just system.

Many hundreds of thousands of working people expected this to happen after the election result that saw the welcome defeat of the Howard Government.

It is now being reported by the ACTU that the Rudd Government is essentially standing by its August 2007 IR policy statements. This is not acceptable because this ALP IR policy went beyond the May 2007 ALP National Conference IR deliberations.

It is claimed this policy mutation occurred because Howard by mid 2007 had conceded his IR legislation had gone too far and through Joe Hockey, he moved to neutralise its excesses with a so called 'fairness test' (sic).

It has been suggested that the extra concessions to the employers in the final ALP August 2007 policy were necessary in order to 'absorb' politically Howard's 'step back' manoeuvre. But it can be strongly argued by then that Howard was already 'done and dusted'. There was no need to water down the May 2007 National ALP Conference IR positions. In fact Howard's 'step back' stunt at the time was widely seen in the electorate as cynical and desperate and didn't require a 'tactical' response by the ALP Opposition.

However, more importantly, it must be remembered that the May 2007 ALP deliberations on IR were already a product of compromise and concessions. Key unions affiliated to the ALP reported on this at the time. The wider union movement had also developed its own comprehensive IR policy package arising from the 2006 ACTU Congress.

It is clear that if the Federal government sticks religiously to its more conservative August 2007 policy statements during the current 2008 consultation phase over the new laws, then the wide-spread expectations that Howard's IR legacy will be replaced with a fairer IR system is in jeopardy. This means the union movement is facing the creation of new IR laws that will remain contaminated by much of Howard's IR ten year agenda.

By the 2010 federal election it will also mean that there will be much 'unfinished business' remaining for the union movement on the IR front.

This is not a good scenario or a good result after all the hard work of the YR@W Campaign so far.