Solidarity

Way back in March this year, senior minister Nick Minchin told the HR Nicholls Society there was “still a long way to go” on industrial relations. If he had his way, the Government would “seek a mandate from the Australian people at the next election for another wave of industrial relations reform.” This was taken by many to represent the real view within Cabinet: speaking to his pro-business friends, Minchin said the current reforms were unpopular but hoped to push further anyway.

John Howard quickly denied that he had any further plans (”None whatsoever”), but does anyone really believe that? After all, WorkChoices was not taken to the last election, and seemed to come out of the blue. The business lobby certainly wants more changes — the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry was caught lobbying Kevin Andrews for further cuts to pay and conditions — but the official line is that the Government is not interested.

What, then, do we make of this speech John Howard gave at a morning tea on 24 July (emphasis added)?

My responsibility as Prime Minister, the responsibility of all the Ministers, the responsibility of the entire parliamentary team is to make sure that everything that we have achieved economically is not only maintained but it is added to as the years go by, and we can only do that, we can only entrench and strengthen the economy further if we’re willing to undertake further reforms such as industrial relations reform.

It sounds like the PM wants to push for “further reforms such as industrial relations reform”, but his office assured Workplace Express that his months-old “None whatsoever” comment still stands.

The trouble is, there is a pattern developing: Peter Costello saying unfair dismissal protections should be scrapped for all companies, Minchin calling for a further wave of reform, the ACCI holding secret meetings with the IR minister to discuss future changes. It gives the impression that the Government held back on WorkChoices for political reasons, but is holding further changes in reserve.

Back in March, just after Minchin set out his IR hopes, shadow IR minister Stephen Smith used Freedom of Information to get his hands on a very interesting document:

DANA ROBERTSON: Mr Smith says Exhibit B in the case against John Howard is a Treasury document from October last year.

The paper, which was gained through Freedom of Information, is called “The Regulation of Workplace Relations current, proposed and future.”

STEHEN SMITH: Of the 50-odd pages received under Freedom of Information, the only part that’s blacked out is the unfinished business, the unfinished business for the future.

So the Treasury, in documents obtained under Freedom of Information, blank out the unfinished business.

Let’s pause to consider the three sections of that document: The Regulation of Workplace Relations — current (the 1996 Act), proposed (WorkChoices), and future.

It’s not clear whether The Australian is seeking a clean copy of the same document, or whether there are other “future” proposals floating around, but the Government has become even more aggressive in blocking FOI requests. The PM’s top public servant, Peter Shergold, issued a conclusive certificate (pdf) to exclude certain documents from FOI’s reach. Among the spurious grounds for the exemption is this:

The workplace reform legislation is now in the public domain and disclosure of the working documents may divert important public discussion away from the actual legislation to a discussion of the options initially considered but later discounted. This would lead to speculation about possible future workplace relations which are not Government policy.

This is essentially an admission that the Government does have a document (or documents) that outlines an even more extreme industrial relations system — a document that would be so politically damaging that it can not be revealed under Freedom of Information laws. That is a very scary prospect indeed.

Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop on Freedom of disinformation.