The Minister for Workplace Relations, Peter Reith, continues his crusade against centralised, prescriptive and institutionalised industrial relations. It is a valuable crusade even if Mr Reith occasionally goes too far and occasionally exaggerates the problem.
The proposals he put forward in a discussion paper issued last week are a mixed bag. And the way he issued the discussion paper was a little didactic. He said the planned changes had been “painted black and white at the last election” and that the Government had a mandate to introduce them. One must wonder what is the point of discussion.
Under the proposals the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission would be significantly watered down. It would be renamed the Australian Workplace Relations Commission and new appointees, other than the president, would be limited to a tenure of up to seven years.
The commission would be able to conciliate in 16 allowable award matters, to be reduced from 20. Any other matters could be directed to private mediators. The commission’s power to ratify private employment contracts would go to the Office of the Employment Advocate. Employers would be allowed immediate access to common-law actions if employees went on strike illegally. At present, there is a 72-hour “cooling-off period”. There would be compulsory secret ballots before unions take industrial action.
Mr Reith and the Government will face some strong opposition in the Senate and predictably in the union movement. The Democrats, who will hold the balance of power from mid-year, have expressed concern about the independence of the commission. The party’s industrial relations spokesman, Senator Andrew Murray, said that the Government faces “a very high burden of proof” to show why measures rejected by the Senate three years ago should be introduced. Senator Murray also pointed out the Australia is experiencing a period of comparative industrial peace, indicating, he thought, that there was little need for substantial changes.
However, industrial peace is not the only measure of an effective industrial-relations regime. Other measures are important. Does the system impinge on Australia’s international competitiveness? Does it encourage greater productivity? Does it fairly share the rewards of productivity between employees and employers?
On some of these measures some employers remain concerned about the present regime and, indeed, argue that Mr Reith’s proposed reforms too not go far enough.
Some of these assertions have to be treated with caution. On one hand, Mr Reith and employers have been right to attack the system of granting industry-wide awards. When Australia could shelter behind high tariffs, they might have been appropriate. Now, better transport and the moveability of labour and capital and rapid development of technology make high tariffs a recipe for lower standards of living. Enterprise-based agreements make better sense. Employees and employers can negotiate better arrangements site by site. It is better to have only a few core minimum conditions applying across the country. The rest should be worked out by employers and employees at enterprise level with minimum legality and formalism.
However, Mr Reith appears to have a bee in his bonnet about unions. Employees are entitled to be represented by unions in negotiations with employers. Some employees are not in a position to negotiate themselves because they feel they are not in an equal bargaining position. Provided people are not forced to be represented by unions and unions do not intimidate non-members, unions have a role.
Admittedly, the union movement in Australia has proved itself singularly incapable of changing to make itself more relevant – with a consequent drop-off in membership. Nonetheless, freedom of association is a fundamental human right which must be respected.
On the question of intimidation, Mr Reith is right to propose secret ballots before industrial action is allowed.
The Democrats are right to look at Mr Reith’s package item by item. They are right to be very wary of reducing the term of commissioners. What possible reason can their be other than to hang the threat of non-reappointment over their heads if they do not toe the line of the government of the day?
Mr Reith would do well to concentrate of the other parts of his package rather than engage in what will inevitably be a lost cause over commissioners’ term. That issue invites attack from many quarters outside the industrial relations arena. He is inviting attack from people concern about the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, even if the commission is not strictly speaking a court exercise judicial power.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the changes in the Australian industrial-relations scene is that change has been uneven. On one hand, the growth in service industries and out-sourcing has created a pool of employees who have few protections and are open to exploitation by the occasional unscrupulous employer. On the other hand, only 28 per cent of the workforce is represented by a union, but in that part of the economy businesses are open to industrial blackmail by the occasional power-wielding union.
Historically, because unions have been very powerful in Australia, governments have seen little need to provide general protections and standards of employment. We have developed two classes of employees: the over-protected and the under-protected. Mr Reith should direct attention both ways.