Red Rag

This is a big one…

• Because the Government hadn’t finished drafting the legislation but wanted to press ahead with its propaganda campaign, it was forced to relaunch its industrial relations policy. Business leaders were summoned to Canberra to be given a special “lock-up” briefing about the package. Apparently, “One invitee isn’t coming because, among other reasons, he thought it a bit rich to be asked to give up his day off. Did anyone in the Government notice the symbolism?” Stephen Smith complained about the event’s exclusivity: “John Howard will brief industry and business — continuing to keep 10 million employees in the dark about these proposals.”

• The policy and advertising campaign is now called WorkChoices. Its orange colour was stolen from the ACTU’s Rights at Work campaign, and the people in the ads have copped flak for being ridiculously happy. Alan Wood (pro-Government commentator), mocked its “groups of workers so happy in their jobs that one suspects indulgence in illicit chemicals.” Kim Beazley condemned the package for “using Orwellian language and Stalinist images”: the Government was “trying to present a new version of “Happy Workers in Tractor Factory Number 451.’” It’s also worth noting that all of the people featured in the ads are white.

• The rush to begin advertising before the legislation has been drafted has attracted criticism. Michelle Grattan says “[t]he time to inform the public about changes is after a policy has been legislated”, and WorkChoices is “nothing more or less than a propaganda campaign.” Former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett says the ads are a waste of money because before the legislation has been seen, “everyone’s fundamentally responding to shadows”.

• Call centre workers who are expected to sell the policy on a WorkChoices hotline are also suffering from the lack of detail. A whistleblower told Crikey they only have access to the short, 16-page propaganda booklet, rather than the longer (but still sparse) 68-page document that was given to the business community. The result is that they can not answer even relatively straightforward questions, such as whether the minimum wage will be protected against inflation rises (the correct answer is no):

  Operator: “I can’t actually answer that for you because it’s so specific.”
  Crikey: “Is there anyone who can?”
  Operator: “No, because there is no legislative detail. Thank you for your patience.”
  Crikey: “No worries.”

• Family First senator Steve Fielding condemned John Howard for “conning Australian workers”, especially over changes to public holidays. Earlier this year, Howard promised that public holidays like Anzac Day and Christmas Day would “absolutely not” be up for negotiation, and that “[n]othing is going to change in these areas.” However, by scrapping the no-disadvantage test, the new laws may force people to work public holidays without the compensation of a penalty rate. The conservative RSL vowed to fight any changes that would undermine Anzac Day.

• The Government has also been accused of misleading the public with the “protected by law” slogan that is stamped on its WorkChoices ad campaign. In fact, many of the conditions allegedly protected can be removed without compensation. Labor presented the example of Tancred Fresh, a supermarket whose employees were forced onto AWAs that took away their public holidays, allowances and penalty rates, in exchange for 16c/hour above the award. The Government cried foul, but Labor is right:

  The Government triumphantly pointed out that that 16c per hour had been raised to $1.31 an hour by the Employment Advocate. But the only basis on which the Employment Advocate could make this decision was on the basis of the “no disadvantage” test, which under the new system will no longer exist. So under Howard’s new system, the 16c would stand.

• The Government’s own WorkChoices booklet gives an example of a worker being stripped of those conditions for less than 16c. In fact, for nothing. The booklet says “Billy” is offered an AWA — on a take it or leave it basis —that “explicitly removes award conditions for public holidays, rest breaks, bonuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, penalty rates and shift/overtime loadings.” On the 7.30 Report, the Prime Minister admitted Billy was his idea: “I remember that example very well, because I asked that it be inserted in the document”. The unions say, “Billy’s the future isn’t he.”

• Billy is not just a hypothetical example of what might happen to a few people under the new regime. Billy is Government policy. The Government “conceded that such conditions could be wiped away with a single paragraph in a contract”, and the Office of the Employment Advocate — supposedly a neutral enforcement agency — promotes template agreements that include such a clause. Unions NSW secretary John Robertson said, “When their own website tells employers how to get around the protections, that commitment is a joke.”

• The WorkChoices booklet also outlined a number of proposals that had not been seen before. The Minister for Workplace Relations will be given dictatorial powers to ban industrial action. Currently the Industrial Relations Commission can ban strikes that pose a threat to public health and safety or the economy — but it can only act after hearing arguments from those involved in the dispute. The Minister will be given the power to ban strikes with no need to consult or explain. He will also be able to intervene in State disputes where “industrial action would involve a substantial adverse effect on a constitutional corporation” — in other words, the Minister can ban any successful strike.

• The Minister will also be given dictatorial powers over negotiations. A new list of “prohibited content” will be introduced to stop workers negotiating with their employers on a range of employment matters. The final item on the list is “[o]ther matters proscribed by regulation/legislation”. This gives the Minister the power to ban negotiations about anything, and employees will face $33 000 fines simply for asking to include those matters in an agreement. The Minister can make regulations retrospective, and we have already seen the Government use retrospective rules to attack the CFMEU.

• Perhaps the most farcical proposal is for “Employer Greenfields Agreements”. Currently, employers that have not yet hired anyone can negotiate with the union that will cover the employees when they start work. But the WorkChoices document allows the employer to make a greenfields agreement “without negotiating with a union.” But there’s a problem: there are no employees to negotiate with directly. Flinders University’s Andrew Stewart told the Financial Review (pdf), “The government clearly wants to make us believe there’s some element of bargaining involved, when a new business makes an agreement with itself before hiring any employees. That seems to me to be spin gone mad.”

• The Government’s advertising campaign has started, at a tremendous cost to the public. Melbourne University media expert Dr Sally Young told the World Today, “these are running at very high frequency levels, it’s very expensive, it’s prime time television advertising on major channels, it’s going to be extremely expensive. There are estimates this will cost at least $100 million.” Labor revealed documents that show the Government has already spent at least $11 million so far. Ads that appeared in major newspapers around the country cost about $1 million in one day (and breached electoral laws).

• Some of the cost so far was to pay for 60 000 information brochures that the Government destroyed instead of distributing. Why? Because “a market research firm told the Government the public needed more persuasion.” The most obvious change was the addition of the word “fairer” to the front cover — but Labor says some other changes reveal the Government’s agenda. Key phrases were removed from the brochure, including “terms and conditions in existing agreements will be protected” and “your existing award conditions protected by law”. The Prime Minister was clearly rattled by the revelation in parliament, and responded with an “uncharacteristic spasm of pure hatred”.

• The Business Council of Australia, which represents Australia’s biggest companies, has called on its members to contribute $100 000 each towards a $10 million advertising campaign fund. Qantas has already donated an unspecified amount towards the BCA’s television and newspaper campaign. The ads will probably be negative attack ads. The ACTU’s Rights at Work campaign will continue, but it relies on small donations to keep it going. Stephen Smith says it is “unlikely” that the ALP will run television ads.

• The latest Newspoll figures show that Labor is racing ahead of the Coalition on industrial relations, with a 50-26 lead. Its rating is the highest ever recorded, and surpasses support for the Hawke Government during the Accord years. The issue is increasingly important to the electorate, though it has been overshadowed by national security in the wake of the Bali bombings. Dennis Shanahan argues that Beazley must capitalise on the issue, because while Labor’s poll ratings remain competitive, his personal approval is at rock bottom.

• Church leaders have continued to criticise the Government’s industrial relations policy direction. Sydney’s Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, was particularly concerned by the undermining of weekends and public holidays, because “preserving shared time for children, families, relationships for all Australians [is] what life is about, not merely the economy. Without shared time we may as well be robots.” The Uniting Church condemned the WorkChoices package as “disgraceful and excessive”. The Australian Catholic Commission for Economic Relations was particularly concerned about people’s ability to negotiate AWAs, and Catholic Welfare Australia’s Frank Quinlan predicted “that Industrial Relations is likely to be a powerful political rallying point.” By contrast, Melbourne’s Catholic Archbishop said he would “wait and see” before commenting — regular readers will recall that he caved in “as result of a communication from the IR Minister”.

• It is perhaps partly to silence church critics that John Howard appointed a born-again Anglican to head up the proposed Fair Pay Commission. Professor Ian Harper is a neoliberal economist with little experience in labour market economics, who has suggested that there might be no labour market specialist on the Commission. Although he refuses to be drawn on the minimum wage, an article he wrote for the Centre for Independent Studies’ Policy journal suggests that he is opposed to setting wages on the basis of what is “fair and reasonable”, and calls for “reform of our domestic economic institutions and policies in ways that emphasise … cost competitiveness” with developing nations.

• The Government has also announced it will allow a brief Senate inquiry into the WorkChoices package — but the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including unfair dismissal and the “Award Review Taskforce” (which could be used to slash working conditions) will be beyond the scope of the inquiry. It will also be controlled by Government senators, and will hand-pick those who give evidence. Given that the Government brags that this is the biggest shake-up of industrial relations in 100 years, it is ludicrous that the Senate might have just 12 days to review the legislation.

• The decision to hold an inquiry is probably an attempt to placate Barnaby Joyce, who says he will not rule out crossing the floor to stymie the IR package. He embarrassed the Government this week by voting with the Opposition and minor parties to defeat amendments to the Trade Practices Act.