• Home
• Copthis Contributors
• About newmatilda.com

February 14th, 2008

Ghost of WorkChoices

By Mark Bahnisch

Tony Abbott got himself into a bit of trouble during the election campaign by claiming that all those old fashioned protections stripped away by WorkChoices were unimportant anyway – because the best protection was giving the boss the finger and looking for a new job. That, of course, assumes that there wasn’t pattern bargaining going on by employers in particular industries where large numbers of AWAs were being offered – such as retail, cleaning and hospitality – and therefore that your boss might have a competitor who’d actually pay you a decent wage.

But anyway, Abbott’s bright idea may be about to be turned around on the Coalition.

Tony may not have the people skills he claims, but if recent reports are to be believed, he and Joe Hockey have more political skills than most of their front bench colleagues. Lenore Taylor reported in the Financial Review that shadow cabinet was split three ways on Gillard’s transitional bill. Bishop’s illogical stance – somehow pre 2006 AWAs are excellent and Australians didn’t vote against them, but… were conned by union bosses and deceitful scare campaigns or whatever – is well known. Abbott and Hockey backed the “just accept reality” position – which is really the only one that makes any political sense. Nelson is said to have supported Bishop.

It’s intriguing, though, that Andrew Robb and Greg Hunt were apparently supporting a third alternative – amending the legislation so that ITEAs (interim transitional employment arrangements) last for five instead of two years.

In other words, people currently on AWAs would be stuck with them til at least 2013 instead of 2010.

It’s very difficult to see the politics behind this position. Perhaps it’s intended to keep Bishop’s hardliners happy at the same time as claiming that Labor’s mandate on AWAs has been restricted. Or maybe it’s designed to appeal to the “consultative” style of leadership so beloved of Nick Minchin by papering over the cracks between two essentially irreconcilable options.

But it’s too clever by half. Tony Abbott was probably aware that labour mobility (people changing jobs, occupations or employers) is running at a very high rate, as any cursory inspection of the relevant ABS data would tell you. It’s hardly surprising in tight labour market conditions. If your AWA really sucked, you’d have every incentive to jump ship for another employer, who won’t be able to offer you a new AWA. AWAs, remember, are contracts between individuals and their employer, not attached to particular jobs or positions. So the Robb/Hunt option is probably meaningless.

This factor also explains why Labor and the unions aren’t really all that worried about keeping current AWAs in place for a couple of years. Of course, if employment went south, say because the Reserve Bank ratcheted up interest rates too high or too fast, workers wouldn’t be too happy with the Libs if they were locked into five year agreements without (in many instances) provisions for wage increases.

The most likely hypothesis is that very few people on the Liberal frontbench understand the very complex legislation and regulations that comprise WorkChoices. Joe Hockey, after all, never appeared to. So there’s another good reason why the divided Libs should make up their mind to accept Labor’s mandate. Abbott and Hockey are right that Labor will wear the responsibility if it goes belly up. The last thing the Libs want to do this stage is use their Senate majority to go on governing – in effect. Unlike the apology, this is one area of policy where it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.