I’ll be having a look in my New Matilda column this week at the Libs’ dilemmas on how to respond to Julia Gillard’s legislation abolishing WorkChoices, the first tranche of which will be introduced when Parliament convenes in a fortnight’s time. Intriguingly, there’s another option open to the Libs other than trying to preserve AWAs and the abolition of unfair dismissal laws, the direction the leadership looks like taking - what might be described as the crazybrave path. The Australian today has published a leaked consultant’s report to the party which argues, incredibly cynically, that the Tories should cosy up to the unions and try to wreck the economy by promoting a wages breakout. If this is the quality of the strategic advice Nelson is receiving, Liberal supporters should be throwing their hands up in despair.
Elsewhere: More from Tim Dunlop.
Update: Possum has his say:
The documents provide a veritable shooting gallery of political naivety, and there is such a large quantity of nonsense contained in the “advice� that it’s hard to know just where to begin, let alone to stop when it comes to pointing out its plentiful inanities - it’s no wonder that some Libs leaked it to the media. It’s certainly an effective way to kill off any potential outbreak of derangement that might occur in the Liberal party should some parts of it, in their desperation, start taking this horsesh*t seriously.
The best piece of advice D’Cruz could have given the Liberal Party is to stop listening to their ever tightening incestuous circle of apparatchiks when it comes to advice in the first place - but that’s another story.
Further update: More from me on this issue here.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
The Australian article says “the Prime Minister has designed a trap for the Coalition by delaying the implementation of the most significant reforms until after the 2010 election ” but you say “Julia Gillard’s legislation abolishing WorkChoices, the first tranche of which will be introduced when Parliament convenes in a fortnight’s time…”.
Will Labor rigorously oppose Workchoices now or after the 2010 election?
The first part of Labor’s legislation will prevent any further AWAs being offered. The timetable for what’s being done and in what order is no mystery - it’s even in the Libs’ leaked documents.
FWIW, the document misconceives the effects of all this, but then that’s hardly surprising given its general level of idiocy.
Quick Julie, you kneel behind Kevin and I will back him up so he trips over you.
Yea, that’s a good plan Brendan, really tricky.
Let me know when they graduate to High School.
Oh and the “trap for the Coalition” thing is bullshit, in my view. To accept this, you have to accept the premise that discarding WorkChoices would lead to a dangerous wages breakout, and that WorkChoices is economically necessary, which is not the belief of Rudd and Gillard. It’s fantasy.
It reeks of one of Baldrick’s cunning little plans.
I would be interested in how the journalist obtained those documents and thus the extent to which they are genuine leaks. They could actually be a trap within a trap.
For confidential documents, there’s nothing really incriminating in them. Genuine internal documents usually reference particular people or organisations in embarassing ways. But these documents read like political platforms, cleverly promoting the merit of Workchoices and trying to cast suspicion on the union movement. (Big bogeyman with $1 billion of funds.) The whole affair might be a clever trick aimed at influencing media coverage.
Or it might be part of a move by anti-union ideologues to frustrate moves the Liberals were considering on other grounds.
Of course it might be genuine. But there are still a few questions I would be asking.
What will happen with AWAs for individuals earning over 100K? I remember talk of retaining them. A way out for the Libs could be to back AWAs for incomes over 100K and support other changes on a case by case basis but moving amendments that prevent an individual from being financially disadvantaged by moving off an AWA onto a common contract or EBA.
They will only get wedged if they are dumb enough to be dogmatic over an issue that has had its day.
I haven’t looked this up and haven’t time just now, but I think that’s when either a common law contract is offered or when a flexibility clause kicks in if the person is covered by a certified agreement.
Tony at 6 - I think they’re genuine.
Compare this paper from Ken Phillips for the IPA which makes a very similar argument:
http://ipa.org.au/files/59-4_PHILLIPS.pdf
[pdf]
“To accept this, you have to accept the premise that discarding WorkChoices would lead to a dangerous wages breakout, and that WorkChoices is economically necessary, which is not the belief of Rudd and Gillard. It’s fantasy.”
Umm, OK, so if that’s the case, remind me again why they’re delaying the full repeal of WorkChoices to 2010?
I recall some palaver about wanting to get it right, but surely that’s just an excuse. You’d think that 6 months or a year of drafting would suffice, with the complete new system in place by early 2009 at the latest.
The consultant offering the brilliant advice to the Liberal Party, Dom D’Cruz, is an operative of the Institute of Public Affairs.
These guys really are a tight little circle. One day the Liberal Party will learn that if it is to re-win office, it will need to listen to people who are outside its circle. That day looks a long way off.
Most interesting here is the fact that the advice was leaked by someone in the Liberal Party. One must ask who would do that and for what purpose
To make Brendan Nelson look like a goose? To make Jule Bishop look like a goose?
The Liberal Party really is a mess. They are hopelessly split on the Apology, industrial relations, relations with the National Party, and much else besides.
I’d heard that the Libs didn’t exist anymore because someone had them in a full-Nelson!
Perhaps if they submit, they might live to fight another day, maybe after the ghost of John disappears.
“Umm, OK, so if that’s the case, remind me again why they’re delaying the full repeal of WorkChoices to 2010″
Beacuse some people are already on AWAs that span more than one year. It was decided that these AWAs would be phased out as they expired.
I loved the suggestion that they support compensation paid by the government for those already disadvantaged by AWAs. THAT’s going to give them real credibility isn’t it? We allowed the workers to get screwed so the taxpayer can stump up compo.
“It was decided that these AWAs would be phased out as they expired.”
Well, why was it decided that way? It didn’t have to be. They could have put legislation through saying every existing AWA is cancelled on 1 Jan 2009, and the worker is then covered by the relevant award.
Greensborough Growler
“It reeks of one of Baldrick’s cunning little plans.”
My sentiments exactly!! And here am I thinking that Nelson’s Lot had completely lost The Plot!!! Perhaps they could entice in Time Team to search their Liberal advisers for the brain rumoured to be cunningly hidden somewhere within.
I might have doubted its authenticity, had it not born the same hallmarks as the Lindsay Affair.
Just DYING for Paul Keating’s take and Nicholson’s Animation!
I notice that in the document 1 that 457 visas were seen as part of the Howard Government’s workplace “package”.It seems to me that no matter what happens to WorkChoices or when, the growing 457 visa system is the main backstop suppressor of wages because it has shown itself to be corruptible and in the dying days of the last government was extended to include low levels of skills.
In one of the election debates between Julia Gillard and Joe Hockey he claimed there were X number of jobs created over Y months and that these figures virtually matched the 457 and skilled migrant intakes for this period.
The author(s) of these documents 1 and 2 do not seem to know this because they are removed from exposure to an ordinary workplace.
Employers know already how to control wages by knowing whom to hire. They would thus not be prepared to join in the scripted extended charade found in these documents.
And be drowned out by the screams from business.
You couldn’t do that for (at least) two reasons:
(1) Conditions have been stripped out of awards, and if you were going to do it, you’d need to update the awards first (a horrendously complex task productive of much conflict and argy bargy that would in any case take years not months). Obviously abolishing AWAs to make some people worse off would be counter-productive.
(2) Unilaterally cancelling legally binding employment contracts is a horrible precedent.
Update: Possum has his say:
The 2010 thing is simple.
The previous comments about current AWAs running out, legal complications etc are all correct.
It also paves the way to be elected for a second term. Anything drastic would shakes things up a bit.
Its Kevins version of relaxed and comfortable.
So while the document shows how out of ideas the Libs are, the strategy for 2010 election is sort of on the mark.
Now for the Coalition its all strategy, no policy. At least K07 had/has policies.
Or any decade past or future. Thank you, Liberal Party stooges, for my trip to WTFistan. Do they not realise wage arbitration is dead? “Wage breakouts” are the bosses’ problems in this age of flexibility.
I had no idea the enemy were *quite* so out of touch. Counter-intuitive is to say let’s crap our dacks about the Victorian ETU and NSW AMWU, but not mention unionism.
ORLY? There’s a strategy for the ages.
Oh, and I should add, bring it on in NSW. State politics has been so boring.
“Umm, OK, so if that’s the case, remind me again why they’re delaying the full repeal of WorkChoices to 2010″
Oh for goodness sake. It was the election platform, you goose. Fulfilling promises on which they were voted into office, anyone?
At least we’re spared the slimy reptilian undertakings of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises (apologies to snakes and lizards - I know you’re not really slimy).
“Business” knows the deal. Tough negotiations will occur. Business will cope. After all, it’s what Business does every day: Contract Management 101.
And putting a show-pony like Julie Bishop in charge of shadow IR…Well, she’s pretty good at swanning around Subiaco.
Which is to say she’s a younger, dumber, yet even shallower version of Dame Bronwyn of Mosman.
And really, anyone who considers absolute creeps like Ross Lightfoot and Peter Nattrass as serious romantic propositions (or judicious political career moves - whatever) is demonstrating a few damning flaws in judgment IMO.
I think Jules would be better placed as a house-mistress at Perth PLC.
And, as usual, Possum has it absolutely correct.
The Liberals wrecked things in government and now want to wreck things in opposition.
Would that include not behaving like porkchops? Hang on…
“Oh for goodness sake. It was the election platform, you goose. Fulfilling promises on which they were voted into office, anyone?”
Yeah, CK, but recently a few people in these parts were cheerfully suggesting that Rudd should tear up the tax cut promises he had made, at least in regard to high-income earners.
And you know, I’m a little surprised that union views seem to carry so little weight with you.
“Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd said unions would lobby the entire federal Labor caucus in a bid to ensure Work Choices was scrapped by the end of next year. … “We know these things take time, but I don’t think it needs to take two years. Our view is that the dismantling of Work Choices should be accelerated through 2008 and not go beyond 2008.”"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22947004-601,00.html
The thing about these documents is that there’s no evidence they’re internal Liberal Party documents at all. They’re just material provided by D’Cruz, possibly on a speculative basis. That’s why they don’t contain any of the incriminating information typically associated with genuine leaks.
While they’re certainly illustrative of the duplicity associated with the anti-worker movement, there’s no justification for associating this particular example with the Liberal Party.
Ken Phillips’ article (comment 9) is actually pushing a different line. D’Cruz proposal was that the Liberals pretend to be worker friendly, while Phillips’ article slammed the Liberals as incompetent. Phillips’ article seems to be a pretty blatant attempt at sucking up to the new ruling power. Other parts of the anti-worker apparatus tried that too.
I’m a bit mystified as to why there hasn’t been a wages breakout. A large number of my (educated, skilled) friends are very relaxed about their employability, and have been job swapping to gain more $$ or a better values/lifestyle fit in recent years. And we’re all paying tradies a helluva lot more because a) we can afford it now, and b) we accept the arguments that half of them have gone to WA and QLD.
Tell you what, a bit of inflation makes a nice change to the shit we had to deal with in the early-mid 90s when we were trying to enter the job market.
Further update: More from me on this issue here.