This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/industrial-relations-the-cranks-obsession-is-now-government-business

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Industrial relations: the cranks' obsession is now government business Industrial relations: the cranks' obsession is now government business
(3 months later)
For a political operation that got so beaten up over industrial relations between 2004 to 2007, the Coalition seems to have a curious desire to commission reviews and inquiries that consider the topic. It’s the scab, so to speak, that they can’t stop picking at.For a political operation that got so beaten up over industrial relations between 2004 to 2007, the Coalition seems to have a curious desire to commission reviews and inquiries that consider the topic. It’s the scab, so to speak, that they can’t stop picking at.
The federal government already has three IR bills in the parliament, including a bill to recreate the Australian Building and Construction Commission with even greater powers than it had before and another that will greatly extend the scope for the return of unfair individual contracts. The federal government already has three IR bills in the parliament, including a bill to recreate the Australian Building and Construction Commission with even greater powers than it had before and another that will greatly extend the scope for the return of unfair individual contracts.
Then there are the reviews. Any time now, the Productivity Commission will receive a referral from the treasurer to commence a review of the entire fair work system. This will be year-long trial of rights at work, conducted by a body who has traditionally been extremely hostile to IR laws and to the way most of us think about work. Then there are the reviews. Any time now, the Productivity Commission will receive a referral from the treasurer to commence a review of the entire fair work system. This will be year-long trial of rights at work, conducted by a body who has traditionally been extremely hostile to IR laws and to the way most of us think about work.
The commission once lamented a fall in childcare productivity after the ratio of staff to kids was increased. When asked to report on the issue of the GST on retail imports, it suggested lowering the wages of shop assistants.The commission once lamented a fall in childcare productivity after the ratio of staff to kids was increased. When asked to report on the issue of the GST on retail imports, it suggested lowering the wages of shop assistants.
Despite the Coalition's past form on IR, we’re supposed to feel relaxed about all this, because any recommendations would implemented only in a second term.Despite the Coalition's past form on IR, we’re supposed to feel relaxed about all this, because any recommendations would implemented only in a second term.
Even when they commission reviews that aren’t about IR at all, the Coalition and their allies can't help themselves. The commission of audit into government finances bizarrely included a surprise recommendation for 10 straight years of big cuts to minimum wages (a prescription that would be likely to have a negative effect on the budget, by increasing reliance on pensions and other benefits).Even when they commission reviews that aren’t about IR at all, the Coalition and their allies can't help themselves. The commission of audit into government finances bizarrely included a surprise recommendation for 10 straight years of big cuts to minimum wages (a prescription that would be likely to have a negative effect on the budget, by increasing reliance on pensions and other benefits).
The workplace relations minister, Eric Abetz, couldn’t resist entertaining this toxic little morsel. He left open the possibility of its implementation in, you guessed it, a second term of the government.The workplace relations minister, Eric Abetz, couldn’t resist entertaining this toxic little morsel. He left open the possibility of its implementation in, you guessed it, a second term of the government.
Next up, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has been asked by the attorney-general, George Brandis, to review Commonwealth law for consistency with “traditional rights, freedoms and privileges”. The reference to the ALRC reads like it was written by a first-year political science student who has overdosed on half-understood Hayek.Next up, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has been asked by the attorney-general, George Brandis, to review Commonwealth law for consistency with “traditional rights, freedoms and privileges”. The reference to the ALRC reads like it was written by a first-year political science student who has overdosed on half-understood Hayek.
This sort of thing no doubt goes down a treat at an IPA dinner, but in the real world people rely on IR law to protect their pay, their rights and their voice. Complaining about IR law and its inconsistency with property rights and freedom of contract used to be the pastime of a handful of cranks. Sadly, it appears the attorney-general has joined them. This sort of thing no doubt goes down a treat at an IPA dinner, but in the real world people rely on IR law to protect their pay, their rights and their voice. Complaining about IR law and its inconsistency with property rights and freedom of contract used to be the pastime of a handful of cranks. Sadly, it appears the attorney-general has joined them.
Although the government has been keen to paint the ALRC reference as just some general cataloguing of the whole corpus of Commonwealth law, the terms of reference require a “critical examination” of whether laws are “justified” and seeks recommendations for change.Although the government has been keen to paint the ALRC reference as just some general cataloguing of the whole corpus of Commonwealth law, the terms of reference require a “critical examination” of whether laws are “justified” and seeks recommendations for change.
Worryingly, only three areas of law are singled out for special mention: corporate regulation, environmental protection and workplace law. A cynic might note that these three areas of law are the subject of persistent criticism by the government’s big-business backers. The review smells to me like a collateral attack on the IR framework under the rhetorical cover of an appeal to “traditional freedoms”. Worryingly, only three areas of law are singled out for special mention: corporate regulation, environmental protection and workplace law. A cynic might note that these three areas of law are the subject of persistent criticism by the government’s big-business backers. The review smells to me like a collateral attack on the IR framework under the rhetorical cover of an appeal to “traditional freedoms”.
The review must consider, for example, all laws that “authorise the commission of a tort”. This is a very big deal in the context of IR. The very act of organising into a union can be tortious conduct and historically required legislation – starting with the 19th century “combination” acts – to be lawful. When people talk of “protected” strike action it means immunity from (most) tort claims. The review must consider, for example, all laws that “authorise the commission of a tort”. This is a very big deal in the context of IR. The very act of organising into a union can be tortious conduct and historically required legislation – starting with the 19th century “combination” acts – to be lawful. When people talk of “protected” strike action it means immunity from (most) tort claims.
The only plausible explanation for the overlapping reviews into industrial relations is that the Coalition remains deeply committed to fundamentally altering IR law. The reviews seem designed to use both legal and economic theory in tandem to redefine the basis of industrial relations in this country. The only plausible explanation for the overlapping reviews into industrial relations is that the Coalition remains deeply committed to fundamentally altering IR law. The reviews seem designed to use both legal and economic theory in tandem to redefine the basis of industrial relations in this country.
The response from the attorney-general to me criticising the ALRC reference was that I was “wasting ... members' money” by doing so. If Brandis would like to save union members some money, I have an idea for him: stop having multiple, complicated and disconnected reviews that require the ACTU and unions to come in off the long run in defence of the basic framework of workplace relations.The response from the attorney-general to me criticising the ALRC reference was that I was “wasting ... members' money” by doing so. If Brandis would like to save union members some money, I have an idea for him: stop having multiple, complicated and disconnected reviews that require the ACTU and unions to come in off the long run in defence of the basic framework of workplace relations.
That would save the ACTU some dough. But, much more importantly, Australian workers wouldn’t be left wondering which combination of these processes will provide the cover for the Coalition to have another bash at their rights at work – in a second term, of course.That would save the ACTU some dough. But, much more importantly, Australian workers wouldn’t be left wondering which combination of these processes will provide the cover for the Coalition to have another bash at their rights at work – in a second term, of course.