The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[heybraham]

just quickly...what is the point of theres reforms? all i see is a vague parallel to the gst (which btw, to date, i still don't see any real point of...i mean, they were about to tax fresh food too...why not just keep the old system of taxing for stuff like electronics and furniture?)

it also reflects last years budget, where liberal solely reduced the marginal tax rate of the highest tax brackets in order to encourage australian society to 'work harder'

...i don't get it

 

[townie]

i have 2 admit that i cant see any benefit in the changes....espescially the idea of cutting penalty rates as mandatory conditions in agreements, penalty rate should be mandatory, the government wants people to have babies, so how are people supposed 2 raise kids if they dont get money for working odd hours so they can take care of their kids.

i have no problem with IR changes if they are beneficial, the states can work together, why cant all the states + c'wlth at least sit down and try beat out a compromise

just another sign of arrogance from howard, fuck i hate him

the only good thing i can see coming out of this is it might drive people back to unions, because workers are gonna need all the support they can get

 

[Generator]

Howard unleashes workplace reform team

PM - PM enlists backbenchers to sell IR changes (transcript quoted below)

PM enlists backbenchers to sell IR changes
PM - Friday, 15 July , 2005 18:47:32
Reporter: Alexandra Kirk


MARK COLVIN: The ACTU engaged external consultants to help map out its $8 million advertising campaign against the Government's impending industrial changes.

Now the Prime Minister's enlisted the Liberal MP, Andrew Robb, to head a team of backbenchers to help communicate the Government's package to the Australian community.

Mr Robb is a seasoned campaigner, as federal director of the Liberal Party he helped to run the 1993 and ‘96 election campaigns.

Andrew Robb spoke to Alexandra Kirk.

ANDREW ROBB: Our primary responsibility is to help the Prime Minister and the Minister, Kevin Andrews, communicating what's in the package, importantly communicating what's not in the package, because most of the union focus has been what's not in the package. And also explaining… helping the PM and the minister explain why we're introducing these changes.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: You concede that the ACTU campaign has made a significant impact when it comes to the court of public opinion?

ANDREW ROBB: Well I think that we expected that they would do something, but I think we're all surprised at how far they've been prepared to go in frightening people, misrepresenting the changes, in fact, telling blatant lies to, in most cases just protect their own fiefdoms.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Surprised by the chord that they've struck, though?

ANDREW ROBB: Well, they have frightened people. And no, I don't say… I wouldn't call it a chord that it struck because, if you put out false information which is frightening people, well they will, they'll listen to it. But in a funny sort of a way, they have got people's attention, and perhaps the unions with their scare tactics may in fact at least have people listening a lot more than they otherwise would've.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Prime Minister so far refused to guarantee that workers won't be worse off. Is that a flaw in the Government strategy? Do you think that he needs to revert to his 1996 electioneering tactic of promising that workers would not be worse off?

ANDREW ROBB: Look I just think that it's just a really a stunt by those that are seeking to oppose this at any cost the changes that we put in place in 1996 – which these are an important extension of – have delivered. They've delivered 14 per cent increase in real wages.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: So the Prime Minister said back then, the industrial relations changes would not see workers worse off. Why not do it again?

ANDREW ROBB: Well, he is guaranteeing… he's putting… he’s putting his record on the line. If we start to get into, you know, individual… you cannot work on the hypothetical. You know…

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But he did back then and he also did again with the GST campaign when he said no one would be worse off under the GST.

ANDREW ROBB: Well he, he did say that no one would be worse off. He took measures to make sure that with the introduction of the GST, that the financial circumstance of people remain the same. When these are introduced, that will be the case. That's not relevant at the point of introduction.

As these things play out, what will be the case, overwhelmingly, is that we can protect the job growth, we can keep downward pressure on interest rates, and we can keep real wages increasing. This raft of changes is the only way, is the principal way in which we can deliver on our promise at the last election. And that was that we would give our primary attention to keeping interest rates as low as possible and keeping the job growth – keeping Australia ahead of the pack.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: And are you confident that at the end of nine months, that you'll have turned public opinion around?

ANDREW ROBB: I am. I'm very confident. And I do feel that once we've had the opportunity to take people through that over the next few months, that they will be comfortable when these things are introduced.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: And do you believe that it's going to take a lot of taxpayers’ money to change people's minds, to make them more comfortable?

ANDREW ROBB: Well I don't know about changing people's minds, but to inform them will take no more than we have committed as a Government, and previous governments have committed in major programs of reform.

You've got to take people with you. We've got 20 million Australians out there who need the information. It is quite a complex package of changes.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: And people have suggested a figure of $20 million. Do you think that's what it will take?

ANDREW ROBB: I don't know what it will take, but I see that it's no different really to other major programs and the communication effort that's gone behind other major programs. It's the responsibility of government to inform the community about what it's doing.

MARK COLVIN: The Federal Liberal backbencher, Andrew Robb, who’ll head a special Government taskforce on industrial changes with Alexandra Kirk.

I love the logic that is promising economic security through implementing 'reforms' that chip away at entitlements, rights and workplace security in general. Go the neocons.

As for the following links, in this case it's better late than never.
Including managers' high pay makes for misleading truth
PM's spin inflates value of wage deals

 

[Alimoe_KG]

Go Microeconomic Reform

 

[Generator]

Staff working on IR laws face curbs
Tom Richardson
July 18, 2005


PUBLIC servants working on John Howard's sweeping overhaul of workplace laws are to have their own rights to take grievances to the Industrial Relations Commission curbed under a proposed wage agreement.

Negotiations between the Community and Public Sector Union and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations have stalled over the department's demand that staff cannot take disputes to the IRC unless management agrees.

CPSU organiser Lisa Newman said the ultimatum made a mockery of the Government's pledge that workers would continue to have access to the IRC to resolve disputes.

"The department is still trying to deny its own staff that access," she said.

Ms Newman said Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews was being "highly hypocritical" on the issue. "If this is how they treat their own staff, what kind of example are they setting for the rest of the community?"

The role of the IRC has been contentious since the Government moved to scrap the commission's powers of wage determination, opting instead to establish a Fair Pay Commission, details of which are yet to be finalised.

The heated negotiations at Mr Andrews's department have included claims that staff were being coerced into signing individual work contracts.

At stopworks this month, staff expressed concerns that the department intended to establish a "kangaroo court" to resolve disputes.

But corporate general manager Jeremy O'Sullivan said it was "not the department's position" to deny access to the IRC. "What we're proposing is that disputes must ultimately go to an independent arbiter, but that shouldn't always be the IRC," he said.

Mr O'Sullivan said the department believed disputes on issues such as performance assessment "should be dealt with more informally than referring it straight away to the IRC and making a federal case out of it".

"It's not the minister's position to limit the options for dispute resolution ... for a lot of these things we see mediation to be the best way of resolving what are generally small-beer disputes."

The IRC could be the best party to determine "particular cases", he said, but the department also planned to appoint a panel of professional mediators to settle disputes.

This "reasonable neutral" alternative could be appointed after an open tender under commonwealth procurement guidelines.

Mr O'Sullivan said the departmental negotiations were being hindered by "ideological" debates. "I'm not sure this is as big an issue for individual employees as it is for the CPSU."

. .

 

[Sarah]

I actually agree with a point made in that article:

Mr O'Sullivan said the department believed disputes on issues such as performance assessment "should be dealt with more informally than referring it straight away to the IRC and making a federal case out of it".

There are some which clogg up the IRC when at times it's more of an internal matter particularly is employees are aware of key performance indicators they will be assesed against. I'm not saying that employees aren't entitled to have their concerns addressed, it's just that sometimes it's best to be left within the firm or dealt in a way that the IRC is the last resort.

To those firms which don't make it known to employees, well it's through their negligance that these matters are taken up with the IRC.

 

[Generator]

It may just be the way that it is worded, but it seems as though both sides are taking an extremist approach, which is understandable given the circumstances. I doubt that the act of referring a dispute straight to the IRC would be the standard course of action (by a reasonable party), and what appears to be an attempt to limit such a course of action would of course be met by resistance. That's my reading of the situation, anyway.

Something new for today -

Govt, Opposition IR stoush continues
which leads into
Keating responds to IR changes

 

[Sarah]

Ok this thread has been a bit quiet lately. Anyway, here's another relevant article i found.

http://smh.com.au/news/national/abo...or-all-costello/2005/07/25/1122143787334.html


So now i'm thinking, "how far is too far?" when it comes to the reforms (not just IR) that the govt wants to introduce.

 

[Generator]

I was hoping that someone else would continue on with the updates .

Unease grows at IR remark

Senator fears for employees' meal breaks under IR changes

 

[Generator]

* AAP reports that unions are challenging the legality of a $20 million advertising campaign that promotes the workplace legislation. The Government speeded up the release of its radio and newspaper ads after the success of an Australian Council of Trade Unions campaign warning workers against the changes.

The ACTU, along with the Labor Party, is mounting a legal challenge in the High Court, arguing that the Government has no authority to use public money to fund the campaign.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...d-as-antifamily/2005/07/27/1122143910450.html

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The plot thickens.... who would have thought the paradoxical little Family First party would stick to its word

 

[Generator]

Democrats add to pressure on proposed work laws
By Misha Schubert
Canberra
and Paul Robinson
Workplace editor
July 29, 2005


Pressure is growing on the Government to moderate its radical workplace reforms with a third senator calling the changes "economically unnecessary and socially unacceptable".

Andrew Murray, the Democrats spokesman on industrial relations, yesterday branded the reforms "uncivilised".

In recent days two pro-family senators have threatened to block parts of the package, leaving the Government one vote short of a majority to pass the new laws.

Without support from Victorian Family First senator Steve Fielding and Queensland Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, it would need a Democrat to support the changes.

"We need to retain our civilised approach to these matters. We are not against change, but we aren't in favour of radical change - there's no justification for it," Senator Murray said.

Senator Fielding yesterday stood by his demands.

"Nothing has changed," his spokeswoman said. "The issue remains . . . the guarantees that workers currently enjoy for tea breaks, meal breaks and paid public holidays - this Government intends to remove them. No Australian worker should be forced to bargain for a meal break. It's just not acceptable."

Meanwhile, Victorian Liberal senator Judith Troeth, asked by The Age about her backing for the industrial relations package, said: "We need to see the details of the bills and look at the fine print."

Her comments came as she and two other Liberal senators in Victoria were accused of "running scared" because they declined to meet members of the nurses union to discuss the IR package.

Australian Nursing Federation secretary Lisa Fitzpatrick yesterday accused Senator Troeth, along with senators Rod Kemp and Julian McGauran, of avoiding a meeting and directing the nurses to Workplace Minister Kevin Andrews.

Spokesmen and women for senators Kemp, McGauran and Troeth say the nurses claims are a distortion. They say they were given too short a notice for a meeting to be arranged this week.

Ms Fitzpatrick said the nurses came from rural Victoria to attend a two-day conference in Melbourne. This had given them an opportunity to meet the senators to discuss the reforms. "I understand that several of our members have tried to contact senators Kemp, McGauran and Troeth, but they were fobbed off," she said.

"Some were told that they didn't have the time. Others said it wasn't the senator's baby and they were directed to Andrews' office, which I think is a dereliction of a senator's duty to his or her constituents."

Meanwhile, Ms Fitzpatrick said she was disappointed the Victoria Racing Club had blocked a bid by the ANF to display a protest banner at the winning post at Flemington racecourse. The union planned to use 1992 Melbourne Cup winner Subzero and jockey Greg Hall to highlight the union's opposition to the workplace changes, with a banner saying: "The Howard Government has won its last race."

A VRC spokesman said the club was apolitical and did not want Flemington to be associated with political stunts.

· Opposition Leader Kim Beazley will today lay out an alternative plan for industrial relations, arguing the case for better human resource practices rather than more deregulation of pay and conditions. In a speech in Sydney, he will argue the Government's proposals will cut the pay of lower-paid workers without improving business productivity.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...posed-work-laws/2005/07/28/1122143962438.html

For anyone that may be wondering, Senator Murray is the Democrats Senator responsible for IR matters, and his position is that even though he is in favour of a national system (as it currently operates in Victoria, and if possible created with the blessing of the states), he is against the ideological nature of the reforms. See http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/ir_balance/ if interested.

It's good to see that Big Kim is going to try and make his mark. It is about time, I say.

 

[Generator]

An update, for those still interested.

Lunch breaks safe - PM overrules Costello, Howard defends new IR criticisms

ACTU, Labor fail to block IR ads, Govt makes case for publicly funded IR ads

Edit: A state of emergency has gripped the nation. Economic productivity is at threat from those seeking to preserve the rights and entitlements of all employees from a legislative package that is yet to be released. Interesting, don't you think?

Edit 2: I just came across this link as I was checking to see whether the Weekend Australian's online content had been uploaded or not. I normally read through the Australian's web material each morning/day, but earlier today/yesterday I didn't. Oh well, no great loss.

Beazley denies staff prefer contracts

 

[Generator]

This appears to be a decent summary piece, and I'll edit this post later today if I come across any other feature pieces or articles that may be worth your time (if they turn out to exist and provided that they aren't posted by another member, that is).

Deal brokers
July 30, 2005


It has been a first-round battering for the Government in its industrial relations fight. It wasn't even in the ring throwing punches, writes Nick O'Malley.

IT HASN'T been a good month for the Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, nor for the Federal Government's plan to remake Australia's workplace relations system.

Things started to go awry at the end of June, when state Liberals snubbed the Prime Minister, John Howard, by noisily supporting states' rights at the party's federal council meeting. The party's Queensland leader, Lawrence Springborg, called the Government's plan to take over the states' industrial relations systems "absolutely stupid".

Then the National Council of Churches declared "the value of each worker is not as a commodity, but as a person, a human being, loved by God", and called on the Government to "slow down and step back from its apparent haste".

The next week the unions launched their campaign against the changes. The hundreds of thousands of workers who took to the streets around the country didn't bother the Government, but the union advertising campaign that followed did.

A week later opinion polls found Howard's approval rating had slumped by 10 per cent. Then employer groups, the Government's staunch allies on industrial relations, began to get edgy. Mark Bethwaite, Australian Business Limited's chief executive, blamed the ACTU's success on an information "vacuum" created by the Government.

Heads rolled in Andrews's office, with former Peter Reith staffer Ian Hanke taking over responsibility for selling the reforms to the media. A public relations consultant and former Howard adviser, Graeme Morris, was called in, and a backbench taskforce, headed by former Liberal federal director Andrew Robb, was set up.

Andrews disappeared into the shadows to concentrate on finalising the complex legislation. The unions chalked this up as another minor victory.

Things got really interesting this week when it was revealed that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, would be "very open" to extending the abolition of unfair dismissal laws for workers in companies of fewer than 100 staff to the entire workforce sometime in the future. Presumably when he becomes prime minister.

Not only was this a tremendous free kick to the unions and Labor, it cemented opposition to elements of the Government's package from two senators critical to the Government, the Queensland Nationals' Barnaby Joyce, and the Victorian Family First senator, Steve Fielding.

Without the support of one or the other of these two, the Government will not be able to get its legislation through Parliament.

Greg Combet, the ACTU secretary, says its stand against elements of the Government's plans was a turning point in the campaign.

The two senators have spoken out against parts of the Government plan that would dump guaranteed public holidays and lunch breaks and extend the abolition of unfair dismissal.

"They're singing from the same song book," Combet says. "They have clearly been talking to each other and that is the first time that has happened on a specific issue." Fielding denies the suggestion flatly, saying his opposition to elements of the plan are all his own.

On these issues at least, it appears the Government is going to have to come to the bargaining table. The ACTU will now work to have more issues brought to that table.

While the senators questioning the Government's plans might be unrelated to the unions or the Labor Party, it is the unions that are raising the concerns, and thereby attracting the senators' attention.

The unions will try to broaden the breach, drawing the public's attention to other rights workers could lose under the Government's plan to cut the number of guaranteed working conditions from 16 to five.

Over the coming weeks expect to see fire and noise over the possible loss of redundancy pay, overtime loadings and allowances. In light of the recent success of the campaign against the changes, senior Labor and union figures believe the Government will be willing to horse trade on some of these issues.

So far the Government is holding firm, with Robb and a spokesman for Andrews claiming there are no plans to give any ground. And as the Democrats senator Andrew Murray points out, none of the internal dissent the Government is facing goes to the heart of its reforms.

Some Coalition senators, staunch states' rights defenders, are concerned about the creation of the single federal industrial relations system over the states' systems. Fielding is primarily concerned with defending holidays for families.

None of them has raised an eyebrow at Howard's primary goals of filleting the Industrial Relations Commission and transferring its power to set wages to a new body, the Fair Pay Commission, or of replacing the 16 allowable matters with five rights enshrined in law. They are cherry-picking their objections.

This, says Murray, is why the Government has been slow to defend its proposals. Among the key Senate votes, there is no opposition to the core of the plan.

"You look back at the [GST] tax reforms. They had modelling and documents and tables and graphs, the whole thing was very well argued," he says.

"Look at this. All you have is a six-page statement from the Prime Minister and the odd minister getting up occasionally."

Murray, whose vote could become crucial to the Government if it fails to get support from Joyce or Fielding, has no objection to a unitary industrial relations system, but is firmly against the stripping of power from the commission and the scrapping of allowable matters.

He reckons Howard is gambling that most workers won't have felt the effect of the changes until the months after the next election.

"The Government doesn't feel it has to justify its case," he said.

According to Morris, who is helping craft the reformist message, the Government will hit back; it just got its timing wrong.

He agrees that the unions have won the first round, if only because they were prepared to tackle the issue as soon as the Government announced what it was planning.

The Government had planned a massive campaign in support of the proposed changes when the industrial relations legislation starts to reach Parliament next month.

"The ACTU jumped early and did their job, but this is not the type of campaign that is just going to run for a couple of weeks," he said.

Combet agrees, pointing out

that the ACTU is budgeting for a two-year fight. "Our finishing line is not when this legislation goes through Parliament," he said.

"The next election is far more significant than that."

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/deal-brokers/2005/07/29/1122144024618.html

Edit:

Beazley softens pledge to ban workers' contracts
Brad Norington and Michael Bachelard
July 30, 2005


KIM Beazley says Labor is prepared to abandon its pledge at the past three elections to abolish the Government's individual employment contracts.

Mr Beazley said yesterday a future Labor government would prevent Australian Workplace Agreements from undercutting awards. But, in a significant softening of party policy, he shied away from their total abolition.

The apparent change of heart could broaden Labor's appeal to business groups, which have warmed to AWAs and feared they could be lost under a Labor government.

But Mr Beazley may have put Labor on a collision course with unions, which are implacably opposed to AWAs and insist they must be scrapped.

Asked directly if a future Labor government would abolish AWAs, Mr Beazley replied: "We are going to abolish the capacity of AWAs to undermine collective awards.

"We are going to weight the balance of this in favour of collective agreements -- they're the best for productivity and the best for fairness."

The concession came as Mr Howard offered workers a rock-solid guarantee his Government would not "chisel" them out of public holidays or deny them lunch breaks.

Labor sources said that under Mr Beazley's proposal, any contractual bargaining would depend on "a substantial base" of non-negotiable minimum conditions as a safety net for workers.

The Prime Minister yesterday sought to stamp his authority on the IR debate after Treasurer Peter Costello suggested public holidays and lunch breaks could be negotiated away by workers.

Amid concerns in Liberal Party ranks that the Government is losing the public relations battle, Mr Howard also rejected suggestions by Mr Costello that exemptions from unfair dismissal laws could be extended to all employers.

Mr Howard and senior ministers are planning an intensive effort over the next fortnight to finalise details of the changes, which Mr Howard hopes to introduce into parliament in early October.

Mr Howard denied workers could lose basic rights.

"We are not going to cut wages, we're not trying to destroy peoples' conditions," he said on Melbourne radio. "We're not trying to chisel them out of Anzac Day and Christmas Day and public holidays." He also ruled out extending exemptions from unfair dismissal claims to companies with more than 100 employees, a suggestion flagged this week by Mr Costello.

An attempt by Labor and unions to stop the Government running advertisements to promote its workplace changes will go to a High Court full bench for an urgent hearing after a ruling by judge Dyson Heydon yesterday.

The judge rejected an application for a temporary injunction to immediately halt radio and TV ads. But he decided a Labor-union claim that funding for the ads was invalid because it lacked parliamentary approval should be considered by the full court.

And in preparation for a harsher industrial climate, two big right-wing unions are in talks about amalgamating.

A merger of the Australian Workers Union and the National Union of Workers would create a super-union with up to 200,000 members in areas including mining, construction, transport and storage.

Additional reporting: Steve Lewis

Source:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16093087%5E2702,00.html

 

[Generator]

The IR reforms and the Victorian workforce.

Bracks challenges IR plans
August 02, 2005


THE Victorian Government has moved to protect the awards and conditions of the 250,000 workers on the state payroll from the Federal Government's proposed workplace changes.

But Premier Steve Bracks admitted the State Government was powerless to protect the 90 per cent of Victorian workforce who are in the private sector.

In a sweeping attack on the proposed industrial relations shake-up, Mr Bracks said the Federal Government did not have a mandate to change the unfair dismissal laws, nor to strip away entitlements and conditions including meal breaks, penalty rates, standard hours of work and long-service leave.

"Those rights, those minimum conditions under award will be stripped away under the industrial relations system which is being proposed by the Federal Government," Mr Bracks said.

Mr Bracks vowed to do "everything we can, by whatever means we can" to protect existing award entitlements of state sector employees.

"We'll do that through the normal arrangements we have as an employer.

"We'll also seek and examine what legislative recourse we've got to examine whether that can be further reinforced through legislative means."

However, Mr Bracks warned the Federal Government would use its control of both houses of Parliament "to thwart the states and their attempts to protect and support workers including public sector workers".

Victoria is unique among the states because it has already ceded its IR system to the Federal Government under the previous Kennett government.

Nevertheless, Mr Bracks said the Victorian Government had no plans to recover a state-based IR system that could protect private sector employees from the reforms.

"We are not going to give false hope. This has to be won in the court of public opinion," he said.

The Victorian Premier said the issue of a High Court challenge to the proposed changes, which are being enforced through corporations law, would be on the agenda when state and territory industrial relations ministers meet in Melbourne this Friday.

Mr Bracks said there was a "very strong chance" a High Court challenge by the Labor leaders would go ahead.

"Other states have a similar resolve to the resolve here in Victoria.

"That is, we want to protect working families. We want the economy working for working families.

"We don't believe this protects working families and clearly that's one of the options open to our state and other state and territory governments."

The Federal Government plans sweeping changes, including scrapping state systems in favour of a single national IR regime, and moving more workers on to individual agreements.

Matters such as long service leave, superannuation, jury service and notice of termination would be removed from awards.

Under the planned changes, employment contracts and agreements would have to meet only five basic minimum standards – annual leave, personal leave, parental leave, sick leave and working hours.

The Victorian Trades Hall Council said the State Government should be congratulated for moving to protect the conditions of public sector employees.

But assistant secretary Nathan Niven said the move only highlighted how much more vulnerable private sector workers would be under the Howard Government's workplace changes.

"Who will come to the rescue for private sector workers when Howard and Costello slash their working conditions from 20 minimum conditions to just five minimum conditions?" Mr Niven said.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16127181%5E1702,00.html

 

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...onfusion-lawyer/2005/08/02/1122748639216.html

A High Court challenge to the Federal Government's plan to take over states' industrial relations systems announced by the incoming premier, Morris Iemma, is doomed to failure and could cause more than a year of uncertainty for employers, a workplace lawyer claims.

- The extent to which the Federal Government can use corporations power has become the next key battleground of the union and Labor campaign against the industrial relations changes.

- It is understood the Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, is yet to sign off on the new legislation.

 

[Generator]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16145621%5E2702,00.html

IR ads to focus on lifestyle
Michael Bachelard and Lara Sinclair
August 04, 2005


GOVERNMENT advertising aimed at convincing workers of the merits of its new industrial relations laws will say that change is necessary for the "retention of the Australian way of life".

A detailed confidential briefing to advertising agencies, obtained by The Australian, shows the Government is keen to run a reassuring campaign to counter the hard-edged emotionalism of the ACTU's successful ads.

The leaked document from the Department of Workplace Relations reveals interested ad agencies have been directed to be positive in message and tone.

"The key messages for the advertising will be: protection and safeguards of employee rights; more jobs and better jobs for employees; retention of the Australian way of life," the documents say.

"The tone of the message should be factual, reassuring, neutral and non-threatening. Emotional appeals and aggressive rebuttals should be avoided." The document adds that the message should also "be delivered in simple and clear language, free of jargon and rhetoric".

ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the document proved "in black and white" that the Government's advertising campaign would be "an effort to con people".

"These radical industrial relations changes are going to undermine the Australian way of life," he said.

"Take-home pay will be under pressure; weekends at risk; public holidays under the hammer; even lunch breaks put into question. These are all fundamental to the Australian way of life."

The document does not spell out what the budget for the ads will be, but speculation put the figure at more than $20million, similar to the amount spent to promote the Strengthening Medicare package before the election.

The brief is for a print, radio and TV advertising campaign to be ready quickly to counter the first stage of the ACTU's $8million campaign. The timetable in the documents says advertising will begin on September 1, though this might be delayed.

A preliminary set of newspaper advertisements was rolled out several weeks ago, but they were hurriedly put together by the Government without the aid of an ad agency.

Ted Horton - creator of the negative L-plate campaign that helped demolish Labor in last year's federal poll, and a key member of the Prime Minister's inner sanctum on advertising matters - has been shortlisted for the job alongside Whybin TBWA & Partners, which created the politically charged $400million GST campaign in 2000.

Mark Pearson, a strategist and consultant on government advertising campaigns, is also expected to be involved.

Industrial relations taskforce leader and former Liberal Party federal director Andrew Robb has worked with Mr Horton and Mr Pearson on federal election campaigns in the past.

The federal Government faces the possibility that state Labor governments, which collectively spend more than $200million a year on advertising, could follow the unions in funding concerted attacks on the reforms.

The documents say the winning agencies must "respond to the immediate need for advertising to correct misinformation and misunderstanding in the Australian public arena".

Edit:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1430404.htm

Govt spends millions on industrial relations ad campaign
The World Today - Thursday, 4 August , 2005 12:22:00
Reporter: Emma Jolliff


ELEANOR HALL: The Chairman of the Government's industrial relations taskforce Andrew Robb has defended the Coalition's planned advertising campaign, which will run the line that the industrial relations changes are essential to maintaining "the Australian way of life".

Union leaders this morning branded the ads a con, saying the Government's proposed changes threaten job and family security, but Mr Robb says the Federal Government's multi-million dollar campaign is entirely justifiable.

This report from Emma Jolliff.

EMMA JOLLIFF: Ahead of the planned television ads hitting our screens next month, the Prime Minister was again on the airwaves talking up the changes to industrial relations, accusing the union movement of frightening workers, but when pressed on Sydney Radio 2GB John Howard would again not give any guarantees.

JOHN HOWARD: I'm not going to make the mistake of purporting to guarantee that the take home pay of every single individual amongst the 10 million workforce in Australia is not going to change.

EMMA JOLLIFF: But the Federal Government is about to launch a television advertising campaign to woo the public, clearly nervous the union movement is undermining their plans for change by winning the hearts and minds of workers. It's speculated the Government's budget for the campaign could exceed $20 million.

So has Government been keeping an eye on polling? Andrew Robb is the Chairman of the Government Industrial Relations taskforce

ANDREW ROBB: No I haven't to be honest. And to be honest I'm not that interested, you know? I've… I do understand polling, I think, having had years in that sort of role, but what I did learn is that, you know, in the early skirmishes it doesn't really tell you a lot.

EMMA JOLLIFF: The ACTU and Labor are challenging the Government's right to use taxpayer funds for the campaign, given that the IR changes have not become law.

A leaked document from the Department of Workplace Relations briefs advertising agencies they must emphasise that the new industrial relations laws are necessary for the "retention of the Australian way of life". But what does that mean?

Andrew Robb again.

ANDREW ROBB: I suppose what we're really getting at is that there are key features which make up our way of life.

I mean, typically we're an independent people, I think. We like the freedom to live our lives in a manner which suits each of us individually. We like a fair go, we're resourceful, adaptable people and we place a high value on family security and peace of mind.

Those sort of key features of our way of life, we want to preserve as a Government and these workplace relation reforms will play some part in continuing that way of life that we all value.

EMMA JOLLIFF: Stephen Smith is the Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations. He says life under the new reforms would actually undermine what Australians hold dear.

STEPHEN SMITH: It is very vague and it's also very hypocritical, because these proposals, not only are they an attack upon the living standards of middle Australians and working Australians by attacking their salaries and their wages and their entitlements and their conditions, it's also an attack upon the mainstream values and virtues that Australians have held dear for over 100 years.

Things like minimum standards and safety nets, things like an independent and strong umpire, things like the capacity to be organised collectively. And so, whilst it might well be a good advertising throwaway line, it stands there hypocritically and in stark contrast to what they're actually doing.

ELEANOR HALL: And that's Labor's Industrial Relations Spokesman Stephen Smith ending that report from Emma Jolliff.

 

[Generator]

Given this post's subject matter (federalism and IR), I thought that a new post would be in order.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16145858%5E7583,00.html

Chris Merritt: Commonwealth ignoring wisdom of constitution
August 04, 2005


THE federal Government's planned takeover of industrial relations is about to tell us exactly what sort of judges we have on the High Court.

Are they prepared to acquiesce in the Government's radical attack on federalism? Or are they true conservatives - prepared to uphold the original intent of the founding fathers and maintain the federal-state balance?

The federal Government has access to some of the best legal brains in the nation and, by clever drafting, might be able to design a new industrial relations system that draws on existing commonwealth heads of power.

Canberra's intention is to use the corporations power for a purpose that was never intended when the founding fathers vested that power in the commonwealth.

True conservatives should find that abhorrent. But industrial relations is an issue that has shown that for some, conservatism is skin-deep.

The Labor states are now the real conservatives and the Coalition federal Government is looking like a constitutional radical.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the commonwealth should have the power to prevent the states from regulating the nation's workplaces. By seeking to do so, the commonwealth is ignoring the wisdom of the framers of the constitution.

Influenced by that other great federation, the US, Australia's founding fathers designed a system of government that is supposed to prevent any one polity from dominating the rest.

State politicians sometimes see this as a way of protecting the rights of states. They are wrong.

By limiting the powers of all governments, state and federal, the founding fathers were protecting the rights of citizens, not governments. The greatest potential threat to individual liberty is an over-mighty government.

By shackling the states and the commonwealth to a constitution that limits their powers, the founding fathers were designing a system to keep that threat at bay.

That is what Canberra is threatening.

The content of the commonwealth's planned industrial laws might be considered desirable. But that is not the point.

Canberra wants to introduce such laws at the expense of the long-established constitutional balance.

And while the Labor states no doubt are motivated by a desire to protect their union backers, they are really defending the original intent of the constitution.

The prospect of a High Court challenge was set in stone on Tuesday when incoming NSW Labor premier Morris Iemma made it one of his first pledges after being formally elected by caucus. Iemma wants to keep the status quo, in which his state and others (except for Victoria) have strong award systems and industrial relations tribunals and allow an influential role for unions in the wage bargaining process.

It is clear this issue has turned politics on its head. It will soon invite the High Court to do the same to the constitution.

 

[Generator]

Three articles have been quoted in full.

Confused young workers easy prey for exploiters
By Nick O'Malley and Jonathan Pearlman
August 5, 2005


Half of the state's young workers cannot tell the difference between casual and permanent work and a quarter never receive a pay slip.

The NSW Workplace Relations Minister, John Della Bosca, seized on the findings of a survey of 5000 people aged between 12 and 25 as evidence that under the Federal Government's proposed workplace changes young people could easily be exploited.

"Given their vulnerability, young people will fare much worse if they are forced to negotiate individually with their employers - which is what it appears the Government wants," Mr Della Bosca said.

"This survey demonstrates that even with the existing safety net in place, young, vulnerable employees are in no position to negotiate their own overtime, penalty rates, holidays or redundancy arrangements."

The survey was commissioned by the NSW Department of Industrial Relations and conducted by Sydney University's workplace think tank, accirt, in March and April.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, said on radio yesterday that the changes were necessary to maintain "the Australian way of life". The phrase appears as one of five "communications objectives" in a brief to advertising agencies tendering for a contract to sell the changes.

"It is very clever," said Richard White, a Sydney University historian who has studied the phrase.

"The term is closely associated with the industrial relations structures that reached their height in the 1950s … structures that are being dismantled."

Today, state industrial ministers will meet to discuss the changes with the Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, in Melbourne.

The Opposition's industrial relations spokesman, Stephen Smith, has called on the ministers to threaten a High Court challenge to elements of the Government's changes, a move sanctioned by the NSW Premier, Morris Iemma.

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations staff will strike in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne today. The staff are negotiating over pay, redundancy and dispute resolution but the Community and Public Sector Union said the policy of forcing new employees to sign individual contracts was a cause of the industrial action.

The department's general manager of corporate affairs, Jeremy O'Sullivan, said the negotiations had been hijacked by union activists keener to embarrass Mr Andrews than to settle the dispute.

WHAT THE SURVEY FOUND

.Half of those who thought they were in permanent work received no paid leave.

.Half had not received any written information about pay, hours of work or safety when they started their jobs.

.A quarter never got pay slips.

.One in seven casuals worked unpaid overtime.



Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-for-exploiters/2005/08/04/1123125856807.html

"Given their vulnerability, young people will fare much worse if they are forced to negotiate individually with their employers - which is what it appears the Government wants," Mr Della Bosca said.

"This survey demonstrates that even with the existing safety net in place, young, vulnerable employees are in no position to negotiate their own overtime, penalty rates, holidays or redundancy arrangements."

A powerful argument, if overly emotive.

The meeting should prove to be interesting, too, so expect an update later today.


Edit: Now for an article from The Age.

Work law ad blitz may cost $100m
By Misha Schubert
Political Correspondent
Canberra
August 5, 2005


Taxpayers may be slugged up to $100 million for an advertising blitz to sell them the Howard Government's dramatic rewrite of industrial relations laws.

With the states today expected to declare plans for a joint High Court challenge to the federal bid to seize their powers, the chairman of the federal taskforce selling the changes has tipped a big-spending campaign.

"I expect (the level of expenditure) to be consistent with similar other major policy changes like the GST," Liberal MP Andrew Robb told The Age yesterday.

"This is a very important program and we've got a responsibility to explain it; just like when a company makes a significant policy change, they have to go to shareholders and tell them what they're doing and why. Communicating it is as much part of change as the change itself."

The advertising costs for the GST campaign have been put at more than $100 million.

The main messages in the forthcoming TV, radio and print campaign will be that the changes will protect workers' rights, create jobs and retain the Australian way of life.

Mr Robb said while some workers had flexibility at the moment to hold on to their way of life, the point of the changes would be to extend that flexibility to the whole workforce.

But ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the message was a con. "The strategy, to try and be reassuring, is really quite laughable," he told ABC radio. "What the Government is proposing to do is to force people to bargain for things that are currently legally guaranteed."

Federal Labor's industrial relations spokesman Stephen Smith said it was now clear the Government was preparing to spend more than $175 million on its advertising campaign.

"However much they spend it's an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money — this is a Liberal Party advertising campaign and the Liberal Party should pay for it," he said.

The debate over advertising comes as federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews prepares to meet his state counterparts in Melbourne today. Mr Andrews will ask them to refer their powers to make laws on industrial relations to the Commonwealth — a request that will be denied.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann and new NSW Premier Morris Iemma have already committed themselves publicly to a High Court challenge over the federal plans. Other states and territories are expected to throw their weight behind the challenge.

Victorian Industrial Relations Minister Rob Hulls last night demanded a written guarantee that no worker would be worse off under the new laws.

But Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly refused to give such a guarantee.

"But what I can guarantee is this," he said. "That this Government is not going to introduce any policy that is going to result in a cut in the take-home pay or living standards of the Australian workforce."

Meanwhile, South Australian Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright attacked Mr Andrews personally, saying the states have no respect for someone selling changes so deceitfully.

Mr Andrews said the Government had been completely open about its plans. He demanded the states stop posturing and hand over their powers in the national interest.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/work-law-ad-blitz-may-cost-100m/2005/08/04/1123125853916.html

That's quite a bit of money.

As to Andrew's point that the reforms are in the national interest, I cannot help but chortle. Abusing the constitution and pursuing an ideological agenda (that is yet to be independently justified, I believe) is hardly what I would consider to be in the national interest.

I'm hoping that the federal ALP makes something of this issue when Parliament resumes next week. If anything, it will make question time slightly more interesting (I'm hoping that they set the dogs after the Veteran Affairs minister again, too).


Edit: Something from The Australian.

Scrapping AWAs would 'lose worker votes'
Brad Norington
August 05, 2005

KIM Beazley has defended his about-face on abolishing the Howard Government's individual employment contracts, saying Labor risked losing the votes of 1million workers.

Mr Beazley, who last week moved to soften Labor's long-term opposition to the contracts, told a private gathering of NSW Labor Right MPs in Sydney yesterday that many people employed under individual agreements by the next election should not be left insecure.

He said these people -- many from Labor's old heartland in the western suburbs -- had signed Australian Workplace Agreements or were self-employed.

And Labor could not desert them by sticking to its policy of abolishing AWAs at the next election and then expect to receive their support.

Mr Beazley was speaking to a meeting of his own NSW party power base in the wake of reassuring opinion polls for Labor, but a decline in his own personal rating.

Senator Steve Hutchins and MP Sharon Bird urged the Labor leader to adopt a "black and white" position by rejecting AWAs outright.

But Mr Beazley argued that while unions wanted to "destroy" AWAs, he wanted to "strangle" them. Mr Beazley believes that if a future Labor government made AWAs less attractive by preventing them from under-cutting awards and collective agreements, employers would eventually cease using them.

Amid concerns raised by MPs Michael Forshaw, Julia Irwin, Annette Ellis and Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr Beazley also said he was wary of John Howard running a scare campaign if Labor stood by its proposed abolition of AWAs.

Labor MPs continued their discussions over lunch at Don Quixote, a favourite Sydney restaurant of Mr Beazley and his colleagues. While Mr Beazley opted for spatchcock and salad with a glass of mineral water, half his colleagues chose the house specialty and national dish of Spain: suckling pig with gravy, roast potatoes and vegetables.

Despite wanting to raise his profile to fight the Government on its workplace reforms, Mr Beazley received one rebuff yesterday after it was reported to him that Unions NSW secretary John Robertson did not want the Opposition Leader as a speaker at a Sydney protest picnic rally this weekend.

Mr Robertson later explained to The Australian that his decision not to welcome Mr Beazley was based on not wanting the union picnic to be seen as "a Labor Party function".

While new NSW Premier Morris Iemma was scheduled to address the crowd, Mr Beazley's presence could reinforce the idea it was a Labor event. "What we are trying to do is build support in the community against the Howard changes, not get Labor elected," Mr Robertson said. In a party that draws many of its MPs from the ranks of trade unions, few issues rankle more than individual workplace agreements.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16157188%5E2702,00.html

Big Kim always struck me as the type of person who would never turn down a suckling pig with gravy.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

An interview with John Howard on the 7.30 report, primarily about IR reforms:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1430603.htm (4 August, 2005)