The Federal Labor Party announced this week that it would reject the majority of the Government’s proposed industrial-relations changes and instead put forward its own list of changes.
Labor’s own list has no hope of getting past first base because Labor does not have the number sin the House of Representatives. Nonetheless, it is a welcome sign of a change of attitude in the Opposition. Hitherto, the Opposition has made itself a small target with as little policy detail as possible put out until just before the election. That was based on the fact Prime Minister John Howard when in Opposition did the same thing and got himself elected in 1996 and the fact that John Hewson before him had lots of detail and lost. This theory ignores the more pertinent point that voters also look at what the policy is even if on occasion they have prefer the unknown to a continuation of an existing Government.
The Opposition should work over the next year or two to put more detailed policy up, even to the extent of draft legislation.
The comparison between the major parties on industrial relations, however, makes dismal reading. Both positions owe more to ideology and paying debts to prime constituencies than addressing what is fair, reasonable and workable.
On the question of protecting employee entitlements, the Government has failed. Companies are still going broke and leaving employees with major losses of leave, long-service leave and other entitlements. These entitlements are trust money. They do not belong to the company to use in everyday commercial operations. Given companies are unwilling to see it this way, Labor has it right in proposing a scheme similar to superannuation, where money is levied and put in a trust fund.
On unfair dismissal, the Government has an unprincipled proposal to exempt small business. Employees are entitled to be treated fairly, irrespective of the size of their employer. Existing unfair-dismissal procedures are probably too onerous in time and money, and that should be addressed and Labor should co-operate in addressing it.
The Government wants to exempt casuals from unfair dismissal provisions. There is logic in that. Casuals take on work knowing that work availability is irregular. They are paid extra to compensate for that. It is difficult to see how a casual can be dismissed; an employer can just not roster a casual to work.
Three other elements of the Government’s industrial-relations package have a great deal of merit.
First, it wants secret ballots for strike action. Too often employees are pressured into strike action. This move will enhance employee rights to have a free and fair vote on whether to strike. It is essential, though, that the secret-ballot process be a quick one, or else the fundamental right of people to combine and withdraw labour will be nullified.
Secondly, the Government wants to outlaw pattern bargaining, where a union engages in industry-wide action. One of the underpinnings of Australia’s recent greater productivity has been the movement away from industry-wide awards and the movement of industrial relation to the workplace level. The flexibility engendered has helped productivity because conditions in one workplace are often inappropriate, often unwanted by both sides and costly in another.
Thirdly, the Government wants to ban unions from charging bargaining fees to non-unionists. These charges are an unwarranted interference with employee’s rights to associate or not associate. People should not be charged for services they do not want. If unions want the money, they should behave in a way that attracts more membership.
It is up to the Democrats to decide what parts of the Government’s agenda gets up. An all-or-nothing approach by the Government will not be fruitful.