Solidarity

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 was introduced to Parliament on Wednesday, despite the fact that copies had not been made available to all Members of Parliament. (Tony Abbott seemed to believe that Stephen Smith could perform miracles, sharing two copies he had obtained between sixty Opposition members.) After an hour of argument about whether debate could commence — an out-of-his-depth Speaker ruled it could — “hey, presto! attendants began coming in, bent under the weight of many copies of the legislation.”

Almost as soon as the legislation was tabled, John Howard found a way to distract attention. A recent Newspoll that found Labor was making inroads on industrial relations also showed that national security remained a priority in the electorate, so it is no surprise that Howard played the terror card.

The PM called an urgent media conference to announce there was “specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat”. It was suspicious: Even The Australian, which (to put it mildly) has been supportive of Howard lately, was forced to admit:

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister indulged in what looked remarkably like a stunt designed to use the gravity of the terror threat to focus community attention on his unimpeachable standing as the nation’s leader rather than his role as the sponsor of the divisive workplace reform legislation.

Howard conceded that this urgent new threat was not enough to raise the terrorism alert level; nor was it enough to involve the National Counter-Terrorism Committee, or to lead to arrests — despite the urgent recall of the Senate to change one word of law. Of course, if there is an imminent threat, it raises questions about whether Howard was prepared to tip off terrorists in order to score political points.

The labour movement’s claims that the title “Fair Pay Commission” is misleading have been borne out by the text of the legislation. The current legislation explicitly requires the IRC to make its decisions with fairness in mind — but that requirement will be cut from the new laws. La Trobe University’s Jill Murray said, “You take those other factors out and the minimum wage will be retarded. It can’t be cut but it can be eroded in real terms.”

Queensland and New South Wales have announced their plans to mount a High Court challenge to the WorkChoices legislation, arguing that parts of it may be unconstitutional. Kevin Andrews told parliament he expected the laws to be upheld by a wide view of the corporations power — but the current bench has given no clear indication of how broad an interpretation it is prepared to adopt. This is an important matter that requires clarification, even if the States ultimately fail.

A previously unannounced provision will also raise constitutional issues. After Howard demanded a Federal wage freeze, unions and State Governments planned to bring minimum wage claims to State industrial bodies — “[b]But the Federal Government has stymied the plan by giving the [Fair Pay] Commission powers to stop state commissions from dealing with any matter before the federal body.” This is a more significant curtailment of States’ rights than had been anticipated.

John Howard has abandoned all pretence that workers’ current standards will be protected. The new comparison is not against what you’ve got now, but against unemployment. He uses the glib line, “Fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job.” But the same sentiment was expressed more clearly by then IR minister Tony Abbott in 2002: “[A] bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband. Not withstanding all his or her faults, you find that he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss.” WorkChoices puts Abbott’s view into legislation, by forcing workers either to accept an abusive, degrading workplace relationship or join the dole queue.

The Government’s insistence that people’s existing agreements will be respected is simply untrue. The Age reported that the legislation will allow companies to use bogus restructuring plans to force their staff onto cut-rate AWAs: “Companies could slash wages by retrenching their workforce and rehiring staff under ‘greenfield’ deals — forcing workers onto individual contracts in the process — as part of John Howard’s $500 million industrial relations revolution.”

Claims that WorkChoices encourages voluntary agreement-making are also unfounded. The Government will severely restrict the matters that may be included in a workplace deal, even if the employer and employees agree on it. For example, “if workers and their bosses want to provide appeal rights for workers who believe they were sacked unfairly”, they face steep fines. Furthermore, the laws give Kevin Andrews “the power to strip from federal awards or agreements any condition he chooses, without consulting Parliament, industrial lawyers say.” This is not about cooperation. It is about slashing pay, stripping conditions, and smashing unions.

Kim Beazley claims the new legislation “seems to say, despite what the explanatory memorandum says, and despite all the Government claims, that an employer can in fact demand you sign the contract or you lose your job.” The Government denies this, saying the current arrangement will continue to apply — which means you can’t be sacked for refusing an AWA, but you can be locked out of work, indefinitely, without pay. Alternatively, under the new changes, the boss can unilaterally end your collective agreement, putting you on the five statutory minima and giving you a massive pay cut while you make up your mind. What’s more, the Office of Employment Advocate admitted it will no longer ensure that workers weren’t forced to sign AWAs against their will.

Industrial relations experts say WorkChoices will place Australia behind Britain and the United States in terms of workers’ rights. Chris Briggs says the regime does not recognise collective bargaining rights. David Peetz agrees that “[i]n many respects we’ll have legislation more antagonistic to workers’ interests”.

Under parliamentary privilege, Labor’s Kelvin Thompson suggested that one of the men behind the WorkChoices propaganda campaign, Liberal stalwart Ted Horton, was under investigation by the ATO for tax evasion: “It is too cute by half that this massive, lucrative contract given out by Liberal Party insiders just happens to go to the Liberal Party’s own advertising team. The public want to know how these contracts were awarded, they want to see the documents, they want to know what checks the Government has to ensure contracts don’t go to tax avoiders.”

Peter Costello was right: there is no magic in the number 100. Through some sneaky new language, all companies will be able to sidestep unfair dismissal protections by characterising the unfair sacking as being done partly for “operational reasons” — defined broadly as anything of an “economic, technological, structural or similar nature relating to the employer’s undertaking, establishment, service or business”. Professor David Peetz is worried that this will allow companies to “target people you want to get rid of,” with “no recourse against you.” The Melbourne Institute’s Mark Wooden says although the new provisions “sounded reasonable”, in fact “the changes would give employers the potential to avoid all unfair dismissal claims”.

The Government is so scared that the public will hear about about AWAs being used to slash conditions that it will jail people for six months for leaking or receiving information about AWAs. Unions NSW’s John Robertson said, “They are criminalising industrial law. Six months jail for revealing that someone has had their conditions cut is absurd.”

Despite fiery parliamentary performances, Labor is aware that the industrial relations battle is going to be long and hard. Kim Beazley described WorkChoices as “like a nest of termites that in the months and years ahead will slowly eat away at the foundations of living standards of Australian families”. He said Labor is “a parliamentary vanguard at the head of a mass movement of millions united to fight for mateship and the fair go at work”. Greg Combet said “very nasty people in big business law firms … know exactly what they are doing in ensuring criminal sanctions for peaceful union activity” — unionists will go to jail. And Combet insisted that he would be on the front line: “I’m not above the fray. I don’t think you can expect others to be on the front line and not be there. I intend to be there.”

You should be there too. Join the community protest on Tuesday, 15 November.