Solidarity

There’s a pattern emerging in the criticism of Labor’s IR policy. The critics are driven by vested interests and partisan loyalty to the Liberal Party.

First, we’ve got the major media critic, the News Ltd group of newspapers (especially The Australian). Why would they be such vocal barrackers for WorkChoices? Because the company uses AWAs to suppress wages and conditions. Mark Latham claimed it had “the highest number of AWAs in the country”, and Stephen Mayne thought this was “a massive conflict that thoroughly discredits any editorial stand they take.” He’s right.

Next, we’ve got the business lobby groups. The loudest and shrillest of these has been ACCI and its head, Peter Hendy. Before he took up his current position, he was chief-of-staff to Liberal IR minister Peter Reith, and before that he was writing IR policy for failed Liberal leader John Hewson:

… Hendy was also long-time chief of staff to former government frontbencher Peter Reith. His stint with Reith included the battle with waterfront workers in 1998 when Reith was workplace relations minister…

Now chief executive of business group the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, last year Hendy was one of the strongest supporters of the Government’s industrial relations laws, frequently criticising union attacks on the impending legislation. This should not be surprising. In 1996, during the early stages of John Howard’s first term, Hendy also worked on the Government’s first wave of IR reforms.

Even earlier, when John Howard was opposition industrial relations spokesman, Hendy helped him write Jobsback, John Hewson’s blueprint for IR reform.

Unions remember him for his “active role in the 1998 campaign that used mercenaries and dogs against waterfront workers.” As Paul Keating told the ABC today, “Hendy, he’s just a Liberal Party stooge.” It’s embarrassing that he is given so much play in the media, often without mentioning his background as a Howard Government hack.

And lately, we’ve got BHP, which yesterday launched “a scathing attack” on Labor’s policy. This was reported widely because, as Crikey pointed out, BHP is usually reluctant to join the political fray.

The company eschews political donations and was traditionally very compliant with union demands at places like Newcastle and Wollongong.

So what prompted yesterday’s unusual entry into the political debate? The most likely explanation is the close personal relationship between chairman Don Argus and Prime Minister John Howard. After all, when Argus was running NAB, he was the banker that bailed out the Liberal Party and funded much of the 1996 campaign.

Pamela Williams’s book The Victory quoted then Liberal Party treasurer Ron Walker declaring at the time that Argus was “the backbone of this campaign” and now he’s stepping up to potentially do it all again.

The fact is, business likes AWAs because they can smash unions and put downward pressure on wages, but if AWAs aren’t available, they will keep doing business. The WA Chamber of Minerals and Energy — which represents the WA mining industry that is supposedly going to fall in a heap without AWAs — says it is happy to discuss non-AWA options.

Labor’s plan is frankly very mild, and most Australians know that. The over-the-top complaints are coming from a handful of sources that are tied up with AWAs or Liberal Party allegiances — hardly surprising, and not particularly worrying either.