Yesterday, the House of Reps passed the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 without a division and the Senate committee released its report into the legislation. Although from my point of view, it’s fantastic that WorkChoices is being buried, the way it’s being done raises important questions about the government’s commitment to consultation and the integrity of the legislative process as well as important questions about the relationship between the labour movement and the Labor party. I look at all this in my column in today’s New Matilda.
14 Responses to “Dirt in WorkChoices grave… but…”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
My understanding is that these laws were designed several months before the election. Many different groups were consulted about these laws. Until these laws get passed, workers can be forced on to AWAs and lose take home pay and entitlements. In light of this, I see no problem with the Government’s attempt to get these laws passed as soon as possible.
Sure, but how about as quickly as possible and getting them right when you get sensible and helpful input?
See this comment on Mark’s article at New Matilda about all those who are on AWAs (which could be able to be rolled over into ITEAs) made before the “fairness test” amendments last year (and for that matter the ones that were made after which disadvantaged workers):
http://www.newmatilda.com/node/3131/1245#comment-1245
One of the things unions argued to the committee was that these should be able to be unilaterally terminated - now. Doesn’t look like it’s one of the amendments Gillard will accept as it goes beyond “technical”.
I agree with Mark’s statement that Labor’s response to the suggestion by the Democrats and Greens will be significant.
Many of the amendments suggested by both those parties are sensible, in my opinion. However, I doubt that Labor will budge because they are deliberately trying to walk both sides of the street on this issue.
I think that’s right, but I wonder how necessary it is to walk on the right side of the street.
Another thing to consider is that certain amendments suggested by the Greens and the first one by the Democrats won’t be accepted by the Coalition.
This is a sticky issue.
During the campaign I came in contact with lots of union folk, and they were not happy with the Rudd ALP.
But they knew they would be absolutely devastated by the other mob.
Now their second to worst fears seem to have come true.
But at least there is hope and potential for the future. But oh how much better and probably so easily it would have been toacknowledge some of the hopes of those suffering under AWAs now and incorporate those changes advocated by the advocates of the workers.
Ah well that’s what you get when you have a right wing govt. I suppose. At least it’s one tiny faltering step forward with no giant leaps backwards.
That’s a bit up in the air. Do they abstain on amendments as well as abstaining on the bill?
Can’t the mover of the bill *ie Labor* just accept it and it then becomes part of the bill?
I understand the consternation in relation to previously signed unfair AWAs being allowed to run out their terms, and people are getting seriously screwed by this.
However, the alternative is for the Government to pass legislation which retrospectively cancels statutory contracts en mass. Personally, I think this would set a bad precedent in terms of the Government stepping in to cancel lawfully made agreements, and I don’t think it would be politically, or practically, feasible. I just think there are some particularly undesirable implications for businesses to be able to plan long term if the Government has shown that it is willing to cancel lawfully made contracts in this way.
Could it also be a case of being TOO wary of the current Coalition majority in the senate?
At least Julia has some good ideas on what to do with all those mouse pads.
Surely everyone can vote on amendments. I can’t see the Coalition passing an amendment allowing unfair dismissal laws for all workers, for example.
“At least Julia has some good ideas on what to do with all those mouse pads.”
What’s that?
I meant I can’t see the Coalition allowing an amendment like that to pass (ie. abstain or vote for it).
“Consultation” is a slippery concept as Rudd well knows. In the early days of Goss, simply listening to the interest groups and imagining a consensus would emerge was the prevailing ‘common sense’. Indeed it was almost the be all and end all of what good government was all about. But that simplistic assumption lasted only for a short time.
In an attempt to redefine that ‘common sense’, the Goss Government distributed a paper written by J Byrne which redefined what ‘consultation’ meant. Generally speaking, ‘consultation’ was more about ‘telling’ rather than ‘listening’.
In the latter days of the Beattie Government, ‘consultation’ meant making a decision and then telling the interested parties of that decision only moments before legislation was introduced.
I suspect that Rudd is attracted to the latter concept now that he is in government.
It isn’t perfect yet but we have cause for a real celebration. Relive the agony and the ecstasy by reading what Greg Combet said in November 2005 and watching Emily and Torina at the Queanbeyan polling booth campaigning for Your Rights at Work. You’ll find them at Work Choices: Gone but not forgotten!
Howard and the craven Liberals must wear the ignominy for destabilising our IR system. They attacked working folk for no good reason other than ideology and a political machination to wreck the Labor Party by strangling its union funding and talent base.
Had they sought mandate for meddling on such a grand scale with an IR system that was performing satisfactorily in terms of employment growth, it would be less of a problem for them. But because they did not, they must be made to wear the consequences of what happens next.
It is to be hoped they pay the price for at least the next few elections.