Kim Beazley has made Labor’s position on the IR legislation clear: “I can tell you this: we’re not beating about the bush with his legislation,” he told a cheering audience. “If we get into office in 18 months to two years’ time, we’re going to rip it up.”

Treasury told a Senate estimates hearing it “reached conclusions about likely changes to productivity” as a result of the WorkChoices package, but the Government won’t release the information. After Labor suggested this might be because the advice did not support the Government’s rhetoric, Treasury tried to back away from its earlier admission. It had produced “indicative estimates of employment effects under various scenarios”, but had not produced a detailed report. Wayne Swan says this is even worse: “Can you imagine a Government coming out with the biggest change in industrial relations in a hundred years and not doing any comprehensive modelling on that? They’d done some initial modelling, it didn’t back up the Government’s claims, so they’ve decided not to do any more modelling because they know they can’t get the evidence to back up their claims.”

John Howard will today guillotine debate on the industrial relations legislation in order to force it through the House of Representatives without adequate scrutiny. The Bill requires far more time because, as Tim Colebatch put it, “This is an almost-impenetrable thicket of blah.”

Don’t expect the Senate to be given a better chance to analyse the proposals. Under the terms of reference of the Senate inquiry, it will be unable to consider some of the worst attacks on collective bargaining, including “secret ballots, termination of bargaining agreements, pattern bargaining, remedies for unprotected industrial activity, strike pay, right of entry, award simplification, freedom of association and civil penalties on union officials”. But even that’s not enough for the Liberals. They now want to adopt the “unprecedented model of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases each nominating a panel of four experts to debate the WorkChoices package”. This is because the Government wants to ignore the thousands of submissions that have been made by concerned members of the public.

The Financial Review reports — under the headline “No choice: 38-hour week under threat” (pdf) — that “employment law experts said the bill included a loophole contradicting Mr Howard’s promise” to protect the 38-hour week. Bosses can force their employees to work “reasonable additional hours” over and above their ordinary time, with no penalty rates. Professor Andrew Stewart said the working hours guarantee “is a stunt because it is so full of loopholes.”

According to The Australian, “Businesses will be able to impose workplace agreements on staff without seeking their approval — or even consulting them — under John Howard’s new industrial changes.” Employers may lodge an agreement without the employee’s consent. It will be binding until overturned by a court, which involves considerable time and expense. This will allow employers to force low-paid employees onto AWAs, because a court challenge would be too costly and time-consuming for most workers to run.

Labor’s claim that 60 000 WorkChoices booklets were pulped at a cost of $40 000 turned out to be false. In fact, the numbers were 458 000 and $152 000. Worse still, “6 million copies of the revised brochure were printed, but only 178 000 of them had been distributed by November 1″ — in other words, 97% of the booklets are sitting in a warehouse somewhere, and will probably be dumped because the propaganda campaign was such a failure. However,

Labor revealed that a company called Salmat had been awarded an $800,000 contract to distribute them, and also that the company and its principals gave political donations totalling $120,000 to the Liberal and National parties. At least some people have got something out of it.

The South Australian Government has set up a website encouraging people to tell Coalition MPs that WorkChocies Won’t Work.

The Government’s absurd ideas about ordinary workers was revealed by Kevin Andrews’ suggestion that they could bring their accountant along to negotiate an AWA. In Question Time on Monday, Kim Beazley put this idea in its proper perspective: “Does the minister expect nurses, social workers, cleaners, bricklayers and apprentices to all bring their accountants? Minister, to assist in negotiations should Australian workers also bring along their butlers to help them make the tea?”

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.

The Government will introduce its industrial relations legislation to parliament tomorrow. Surely Kevin Andrews, a devout Catholic, couldn’t have missed the significance of on All Souls’ Day, which commemorates the faithful departed? It certainly resonates with a report that says WorkChoices will shorten the lives of low-income workers. The study cited evidence from New Zealand that similar changes led to a rise in “mortality rates… [c]ardiovascular disease, lung cancer, other cancers and suicides”.

The NSW Government announced it would spend $300 000 on a Fair Go advertising campaign and website to defend its industrial relations system. The Liberal Party somehow kept a straight face while complaining, even though the WorkChoices campaign has already cost “$44.3 million for ads, $8.1 million for call centres and $2.6 million on 16-page brochures”. The public is outraged, and a leaked Telstra report shows they have been calling the WorkChoices hotline to complain.

The Business Council of Australia, which represents the nation’s 100 biggest companies, launched its own advertising campaign this week. At least $6 million will be spent pushing IR changes as well as tax cuts for the rich. Although the ads are less patronising than the Government’s, Stuart Wilson warns they may backfire: “Members of the BCA are among the most highly paid individuals in the country, and this advertising campaign has the real potential to make debate on workplace reforms even more polarised between the haves and have-nots.”

Barnaby Joyce is again threatening to cross the floor, raising concerns about the exploitation of young people: “You have to be mindful of people with no bargaining power.” But when the NSW Council of Catholic School Parents put forward a sensible proposal to teach young people how to stand up for their rights at work, it was dismissed by the Government as “an insult to the intelligence of young people”.

After the Government broke its promise to provide a family impact statement on his IR proposals, Unions NSW stepped in to commission its own study. It asked Dr Don Edgar, the foundation director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, to produce a family impact statement. After considering the WorkChoices package, Edgar concluded: “None of this looks family-friendly or equitable, and offers flexibility not for the workers but for a boss wanting to screw the last dollar out of the last breath of effort of workers already struggling to meet their reciprocal work and family responsibilities.”

Meanwhile, a prominent US analyst has confirmed the ACTU’s belief that its ad campaign has been a rousing success:

Thirty-five per cent (!!) of the electorate said they were less likely to vote for the Coalition in the next election because of the proposed IR changes. That’s a gigantic number.

The [Financial Review] pooh-poohs the fact that ‘only 20 per cent of respondents who voted for the Liberal Party or Nationals in 2004 said they are now less likely to vote for the Coalition because of the Government’s approach to industrial relations.’ Only 20 per cent. That’s enough shift to win the next election.

To have your say about the WorkChoices package, complete this survey.

The High Court delivered its reasons for approving the WorkChoices propaganda campaign. My initial assessment was that the majority have rendered the Senate’s budget scrutiny impotent; Kenneth Davidson agrees: “As important as the political advertising case was, it pales into insignificance compared with the violence the majority decision has done to the institution of Parliament and open and accountable government.”

The Government’s massive propaganda campaign — $40 million in under a month — has failed to convince the public that the IR changes are a good thing. As Andrew Norton points out, all of the major polls agree that about 30% of people think WorkChoices will be bad for Australia, while only about 10% think it will be good. Some commentators, like Michelle Grattan, think the big proportion who don’t think they will be immediately, personally affected means “the changes may not have the political ‘bite’ that the high level of opposition suggests.” The challenge for the unions is to build solidarity between skilled workers in demand, who will be insulated in the short term, and those workers who are more vulnerable.

Stephen Smith says the WorkChoices hotline script (you saw it here first!) shows the Government will not protect wages and conditions: “There are no guarantees that you find in this confidential briefing paper. No guarantees that living standards will be protected, no guarantee that real wages will be protected, no guarantees that anything will occur.” Meanwhile, hotline operators are “being hit with a barrage of complaints.”

John Howard claims WorkChoices is a natural extension of the policies of the Hawke and Keating Labor Governments — but Bob Hawke strenuously disagrees: “It is wrong. It is unfair. It is un-Australian. It is immoral… This is simply a monstrous trick on the least privileged workers in our society.”

The Government will introduce the IR legislation into parliament next Wednesday, hiding behind the Anti-Terrorism Bill and the Melbourne Cup. Despite the incredible complexity of the legislation, the opposition parties will have just minutes to look at the full text before the debate begins.

A Senate inquiry that was initially going to run for two weeks and visit all States, will now last just five days. You’d be forgiven for thinking the Government had something to hide. The terms of reference exclude most of the controversial aspects of the package, but if you can find something you’re allowed to talk about, feel free to make a submission by 9 November.

Backdown Barnaby has given the strongest indication yet that he’ll abandon Queensland workers when the time comes to vote.

John Howard keeps reminding us that his guarantee is his record on minimum wage increases, and he’s right. In almost half of its submissions to the IRC’s wage case, his Government has supported real wage cuts — and now he’s demanding a wage freeze for Australia’s lowest-paid workers.

Another happy-clappy worker from the WorkChoices propaganda claims to have been tricked into appearing. Melbourne hairdresser Phelia Grimwade says she was told the release form was for an occupational health and safety video, not Liberal Party propaganda.

A study commissioned by the WA Government shows that the proto-WorkChoices industrial relations system of the Court/Kierath Government set workers back a long way. The study looked at AWA-like workplace agreements and found “that 56 per cent of all agreements provided an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate, 74 per cent provided no weekend penalty rates and 67 per cent did not include overtime rates of pay.”

Kevin Andrews’ claim that WorkChoices is family friendly was rejected by the ACTU, citing a Department of Workplace Relations report as evidence. AWAs overwhelmingly do not provide parental leave, and the ACTU says “[i]t must be of little comfort to employees on individual contracts (AWAs) to know that the most common family-friendly clause in their employment contract is for leave in the terrible event that a family member dies” — and most AWAs don’t even provide that.

The Government’s advertising campaign has been ineffective so far. A Morgan poll says only 1% more people have heard of the IR proposals since the WorkChoices campaign began. 49% of respondents opposed the package, with a measly 17% in support.

In particular, the WorkChoices hotline has been a spectacular failure. The operators are worried about the information they are giving out — they’re forced to mislead workers, while giving employers advice on how to sack people and cut their wages. The Government has already sacked fifty call centre staff in Sydney because nobody was ringing the hotline, and Crikey reported yesterday that a Melbourne call centre was also closed, “apparently because of a lack of public interest about the new workplace changes.”

After reviewing the policy detail announced last week, the Salvation Army has joined the ranks of religious opposition to WorkChoices: “When you look at this reform package from the most disadvantaged in Australia, it is not ethical because it exploits them.” Meanwhile, Anglican Primate Dr Phillip Aspinall has reiterated his concerns, and promised to scrutinise the legislation closely.

The WorkChoices propaganda campaign has been talking up the Office of Workplace Services, promising that “your rights will be protected” by it — but the facts tell a different story. In 2002-03, it received 5254 complaints, substantiated 3500, but only recovered monies in 3 cases. With a prosecution success rate of less than 1% of substantiated claims, it’s hard to believe the Office will protect anything at all.

We’ve all heard about Billy, the jobseeker who is offered a “take it or leave it” AWA that strips him of all holidays, penalty rates, and overtime loadings, with no compensatory wage increase. Kevin Andrews confirmed that if Billy turns down the job because he doesn’t want to be exploited, he will be breached and lose his Centrelink payments.

When Peter Costello said there was “nothing magic in a number”, it was thought he planned to scap unfair dismissal protections across the board at some point in the future. But lawyers are questioning whether the Government is already weakening protections for workers in big firms, by reversing the current onus of proof in certain cases: “The question which is not answered in WorkChoices is how is the onus of proof going to work in the future.”

It will be harder for researchers to assess the impact of the WorkChoices package, because the Australian Bureau of Statistics is scrapping an important work-related statistical measure. Starting next year, the ABS Earnings and Hours survey will no longer ask on what basis people are employed — which means it will be impossible to compare AWAs to other measures. The Government was embarrassed by ABS figures that show non-managerial workers earn less than people on collective agreements.

While the WorkChoices propaganda claims it will provide family-friendly workplaces, the truth is it will wind back recent gains won by unions in the Industrial Relations Commission. Dr Jill Murray asked, “Why go back to the 1970s standards when we have got a 2005 standard? It’s a tragedy for families. It is going to be desperately hard for them to achieve a work-family balance”.

Kim Beazley challenged John Howard to a televised debate on the IR changes; Howard is chicken.

Workers who feature in the Government’s WorkChoices propaganda campaign are fuming about being misled: they were told they were being filmed for a workplace safety video. Kevin Andrews says they signed a release form, but perhaps they wouldn’t have signed it if they knew what the footage was actually going to be used for?

The Electrical Trades Union has embraced the internet to keep its members informed and campaign against the Howard Government. Phil Cleary says, “Our members express frustration about how the media portrays trade unionists, so we see the podcast as a way to disseminate more objective and independent views about trade unionists.” Find out more about the Spark podcast, or subscribe to the feed.