Red Rag

The Prime Minister yesterday offered a rationale for his industrial relations reforms, based on what he calls the rise of the “enterprise worker”. Apparently they are united by the knowledge that if the company that employs them fails, they will be out of work. True enough — but that’s hardly different to days gone by. It certainly doesn’t lead to the conclusion that people must put corporate profits ahead of the need to put food on their table.

Interestingly, Howard asked us to “look at the experience in New Zealand”, which I think is a very good idea. Let me refer you once again to Professor Peetz:

And if you look across the Tasman, you can see the consequences of what is to come. From 1991 to 1996, after its radical Employment Contracts Act was passed, New Zealand’s government pushed individual contracting, while Australia’s favoured collective enterprise bargaining.

The “safety net” under individual contracts in New Zealand was very similar to what the Federal Government plans to introduce here.

What happened? The two countries had enjoyed similar productivity growth for 14 years leading up to the ECA. But then, New Zealand slipped behind. By 1998, New Zealand’s productivity was 14 per cent below what it would have been if it had kept pace with Australia. The ECA was a disaster for productivity.

The ACTU has responded to Howard’s speech by pointing out that if increased productivity is the goal, it does not need to come at the expense of people’s working and living conditions. “I can’t understand why it would be in the national interest to hurt working families,” said Sharan Burrow. “We want productivity, we want to see skills, infrastructure, research and development, technology — those things drive productivity not people’s lives, not our living standards, not our families.”

The Australian’s Steve Lewis is sympathetic to Howard’s proposals, but agrees with the ACTU that there are far more pressing matters to be dealt with: “Australia will not be able to compete against the rising economic superpowers of China and India by trying to undercut them on wages. Skilling the nation is a more critical task than winding back worker protection.” Lewis warns that “neither will a conservative electorate take kindly to laws that hand too much to the bosses and undermine workplace camaraderie.”

Graham Kierath, who imposed draconian IR reforms on Western Australia, thinks Howard will be forced to back down on elements of his package. Kierath was opposed by massive protests and trounced in the 2001 elections. A strong campaign by people who lost their rights to workers’ compensation successfully repelled his bid to re-enter parliament this year. People have long memories about these issues.

The Government says that undermining job security by scrapping unfair dismissal protections will create jobs. A survey of 1200 business owners and chief executives says this is a furphy.

Peter Costello says some people are hypocritical for encouraging Anglican clergy to comment on political matters, while opposing Pentacostal intervention. Television’s Daily Flute points out that Costello is in no position to cast the first stone. Costello also says of Dr Phillip Aspinall, “Just because he has a theological degree doesn’t mean he is an IR expert” — but Aspinall has several degrees, including a master’s in business administration.