*NEW* Senator Murray's Minority Report to the Work Choices Committee Inquiry
The Full Senate committee report is available from
IR Reforms - Bring Back Democrats Balance
The Democrats in the balance of power had been the honest brokers on industrial
relations, working hard to find a balance between employer flexibility and employee
rights. The Governments IR reforms will excessively tip the balance of workplace
relations to favour employers, leaving many workers vulnerable.
18 IR bills have passed the Senate during the eight plus years of the Howard
Government;1 a Coalition/Labor bill, 6 passed by the Coalition/ Labor/Democrats;
and, 11 negotiated and amended by the Democrats and opposed by Labor. 13 bills
have not passed, but because they repeat previous bills, those 13 in fact reflect
just 4 proposals.
The most significant bill passed became the Workplace Relations Act 1996. That
bill proposed a radical overhaul of IR, building on the ‘first wave’ reforms of
the Labor Government. The Democrats supported the 1996 reforms but only after
176 amendments to restore a fairer balance. The concerns raised by unions and
Labor of the governments reform were never realised because of the Democrats amendments.
Why erode employee protection and conditions when our economy is relatively strong
and when other areas in our economy can be targeted? | Instead in the last 12 years we have seen significant increases in labour productivity,
low unemployment, falls in industrial disputes, with only comparatively modest
wage growth.
It must be remembered that the 1996 reforms occurred at a time where the economy
needed picking up, today this is not the case, the economy is doing reasonably
well.
Now, in 2005, the Government are proposing another radical overhaul, but this
time there will be no-one to ameliorate and provide a fair balance.
The Democrats Position on Government IR reforms
Government’s May reform package |
Democrat Position |
National system of workplace relations
There are 6 overlapping different IR systems in Australia, which creates complexity,
confusion and inefficiencies. The Government proposes to use corporations powers
to cover the majority (approximately 85%) of the workforce. Alternatively the
States can hand over their powers like they did with tax and corporations and
get 100% coverage. The Democrats believe it would have been far better for the
federal Government to come to an agreement with the States on a unitary system
in return for agreement of content. |
Support – only if current federal system is retained |
Establish the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC)
The AFPC replaces the role of the independent industrial umpire the AIRC in establishing
minimum wage, with a body of economic experts, despite the AIRC already taking
into account economic considerations. The model is based on the UK system which
was established in 1998 to provide employees with decent standards and fairness
in the workplace and to address pay equity issues. The motivation for a similar
system in Australia is to drive down the minimum wage to generate employment.
A lower minimum wage will result in an increase in income inequality, greater
gender stratification, and act as a disincentive for women in particular to enter
the workforce. We are also concerned about the appointment process – this government
has a poor record on merit appointments – and whether the criteria will place
enough emphasis on social and equity matters. |
Unnecessary |
Create Australian Fair Pay conditions and standards
The Government will legislate 5 minimum conditions of employment: annual leave,
personal/carers leave, parental leave, and maximum ordinary working hours, and
in combination with the minimum wage those will form the fair pay conditions and
standards. This will replace the current “no disadvantage test” which requires
that agreements must not on balance reduce the terms and conditions of employment.
The “no disadvantage” test is based on federal awards, which currently include
20 allowable matters and minimum award skill classifications. Conditions such
as redundancy pay, overtime, shift rates, casual loadings, notice of roster, public
holidays, and allowances will no longer be a minimum condition. The old no disadvantage
test had been a disincentive to adopting AWAs, but with the changes, employment
lawyers are likely to recommend AWAs to employers, meaning more and more Australians
will be put on minimum conditions. It is likely that workers with low bargaining
power such as youth, unskilled, single parents, disabled, ethnic workers, forced
on to individual AWAs will be required to sign up to only the minimum conditions
and standards. |
Reject |
Changes to agreement making process
(1) currently the independent AIRC approves all collective agreements. The Government
plans to hand over this work to the Office of the Employee Advocate within the
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2) All agreements (collective
and AWAs) currently take effect after they have been certified/approved by the
relevant body. The Government’s reform will enable them to take effect from the
day of lodgment before they are checked for problems. |
Reject |
The right to sack unfairly
The Government will exempt business with 100 employees or less from unfair dismissal
laws. Workers could be sacked at any time with out fair reason, compensation or
recourse. This law will apply to approximately 3.5 million workers, almost half
the workforce. Australia already has one of the lowest employment protection regulations
in the OECD [1]. The Government claim that exempting unfair dismissal laws to small and medium
sized firms will create employment, yet there is no tangible evidence to support this claim. For example, the experiment under Queensland
State laws, when their then Coalition government introduced an exemption for small
business, had no effect on job creation. The Democrats believe that further [2] improvements to UFD processes to address frivolous and vexatious claims would
have gone a long way to addressing employer concerns and maintained employee protection. The law divides the workforce into the haves and the haves not. The Democrats
have previously rejected attempts of the Government to exempt business with less
than 20 employees exemption from unfair dismissal laws.
[1] Australia is ranked 6 out of 28, where 1 has the lowest level of employment
protection regulation – OECD 2003.
[2] The Democrats negotiated process improvements to the federal UFD system in 1999
and 2003, leading to reduced UFD claims at the federal level. |
Reject |
Government’s previously announced reforms |
Democrat Position |
Establishment of an Independent Contractors Act
The Democrats are not opposed to the principle of an Independent Contract, however
the Democrats are concerned about contractors who are disguised employees in reality
and would like to see provisions included in the WR Act 1996 that defines employees
so as to protect genuine employees. |
Undecided |
Separate Laws for the Building and Construction Industry
The Democrats do not support industry specific legislation and believe that many
of the reforms in the proposed legislation are draconian and unnecessary. We do
support a national workplace relations regulator. The Democrats previously rejected
this Bill although supported some provisions through another Bill. |
Reject |
Exempt small business form redundancy payments
This Bill overturns the AIRCs decision in May and June 2004 to require small
business to make redundancy payments. The Democrats believe that if a business
has the capacity to pay that they should; however if they don’t then there should
be a simple and easy mechanism to seek exemption from payment. |
Reject |
Establish secret ballot provisions for strikes
The Democrats have previously rejected Government attempts to establish additional
secret ballot provisions for strikes, as the provisions are unworkable and would
severely hamper unions and employees and lengthen strikes. |
Reject |
Tougher right of entry system
The Democrats believe that right of entry laws need improving to curtail those
that abuse the system; however we believe that right of entry is a fundamental
tenet of freedom of association, a principle that the Democrats have strongly
advocated. The Democrats negotiated reform right of entry in 1996, but have rejected
further attempts by the Government to further restrict right of entry. With the
exception of a single unitary system, we think the provisions in the current Bill
before parliament go too far and will limit the legitimate role of the union to
protect workers rights and conditions. |
Reject |
Restrict “pattern bargaining” – sector wide bargaining agreements
The Democrats do not oppose sector-wide agreements. Sector-wide collective agreements
and enterprise collective agreements are not mutually exclusive, and nor are multi-employer
site or sector agreements necessarily at odds with efficient and effective industrial
outcomes. In some cases, both employers and employees see benefits in having
an industry or sectoral standard in mind as they approach bargaining at an enterprise
level. We have rejected previous attempts to restrict sector-wide bargaining. |
Reject |
No Mandate
The Government went to the election with a comprehensive reform package, yet
only 9 months later the Government announced new reforms that Australians didn’t
vote on and which go beyond their mandate. These new reforms take away conditions
and rights from the majority of Australian workers.
- Exempt business with 100 employees or less from unfair dismissal laws (the Government
had previously only flagged that business with less than 20 employees would be
exempt);
- Minimum conditions and standards and the “no disadvantage test”; and
- Approval of Certified Agreements by the Office of Employment Advocate
The Democrats believe that at a minimum the Federal Government should seek agreement
with the States on these three issues.
The Democrats support continuous improvement to workplace relations law guided
by our IR policy and Democrat principles, but we do not believe that radical change
is needed to the system. The new laws will harm the job security, pay, conditions
and ultimately the living standards of most Australian workers - whether they
are members of a union or not.
“Basing aggressive reform on ideology and not evidence is bad government.”
What you Can Do
Visit the ACTU's "your rights at work" webpage at http://www.actu.asn.au/work_rights/ to find out about activities that you can go along to and protest against the
reforms and remind people of the Democrats ameliorating role in IR.
Write a letter to a local newspaper
|
Further Reading
For a list of IR legislation that has passed through the senate for the life
of the Howard Government go to http://www.andrewmurray.democrats.org.au/documents/337/WRBills%2096%20Onwards.pdf
Democrats Workplace Relations policies and issue sheets
Latest Press Releases for Workplace Relations
ABC TV Lateline: Democrat Murray against IR changes
|
