Tag Archive for 'WorkChoices'

Good for two Coalition election losses?

The ACTU has released polling which finds that 53% of respondents believe that Tony Abbott would reintroduce WorkChoices under another name.

Abbott’s been addressing some business functions of late, no doubt because he has to build some bridges and mend some fences on economic issues, and raise some campaign dosh. It’s had nowhere near as prominent a part in reporting as his remarks on virginity and ironing, but I did notice that he’d been preaching the virtues of “flexibility” in industrial relations. No detail, but it’s not hard to deconstruct the message he’s sending.

Update: Via Andrew Reynolds in comments, a link to the poll.

Update: Abbott wants to scrap penalty rates and bring back statutory individual employment agreements.

Even the devil sometimes speaks true? Rudd, Labor and the 2010 election

We have it on good authority, that of St Thomas Aquinas, that demons and evil spirits can sometimes speak the truth. Now, I’m not saying that Janet Albrechtsen falls into either of those categories, but for once I was interested to read something she wrote:

It is disappointing if this is now the politics of Rudd’s prime ministership. Despite Rudd’s tendency to conflate issues as moral challenges, he appears to view every political decision through one prism: inflict no pain and it’s all gain for him. … Here, in a nutshell, is Rudd’s political nirvana. He can continue a prime ministership based on rhetorical flourishes and symbolism without inflicting any pain on voters.

Much of Albrechtsen’s analysis is inflected with the spleen one would expect (and the illusion that to introduce WorkChoices is to do good), but I suspect she has something of a point. I’ve been critical myself of Rudd’s ‘big tent’ strategy – the accumulation of political capital for its own sake. As I’ve also commented, the Labor Party, in the face of Abbott’s leadership, is likely to downplay climate change as an issue. In an election year, the theme will move to an accentuation of the argument that Abbott and his frontbench waxworks represent a return to Howardism; but a nastier, more brutish version. And don’t be misled, they’ve hardly even begun to fight on this front. In many respects, the smart political move is to let Abbott prepare his own noose, as his negatives are already very much defined in the public mind.

But any election theme that Abbott represents the past requires painting Rudd as representing a brighter future. I’m not so certain Labor can just run on its record – a la the first term Hawke government, which got a nasty surprise in the 1984 election. Continue reading ‘Even the devil sometimes speaks true? Rudd, Labor and the 2010 election’

Tony Abbott and the politics of denialism

Tony Abbott appears to have taken that gospel saying about being “cunning as a serpent” to heart, if not the bit about being “gentle as a dove”. The problem with the media cycle these days for the political obfuscator is that it’s harder to say one thing to one audience and one to another – always one of the great political standbys. You can, however, get away with it, given that few people are paying attention to anything but the soundbites targeted at them – you know, the spin Abbott and co are always accusing Kevin Rudd of.

In comments on another thread, Sir Henry Casingbroke has a great summation of the new Liberal leader’s appearance on Lateline tonight, and his political tactics. The ‘base’ he appears to be aiming at is the ‘battlers’ – it’s a defensive strategy to stop further Labor gains in outer suburban and regional seats. How that will be squared with the resurrection rebadging of WorkChoices remains to be seen.

But there’s another aspect to Abbott’s strategy – one I alluded to in my Overland post (also discussed here). Ironically, opposing market solutions (albeit with something completely illusory) might, in Abbott’s mind, work wonders for the parties of the right. The denialist dog whistling and the claims that ‘warming has stopped’ are just the ideological icing on the cake:

So business as usual is popular, with the odd twist that it’s now the political right who oppose market solutions. But Tony Abbott may be onto something; he’s playing to the politics of a vague desire that ‘something be done’. Install a solar panel, and forget about it – the state will sort it out. It won’t happen, but it has an appeal above and beyond market solutions which by necessity create winners and losers, and precisely the uncertainty and fear that most would rather wish away.

The federal Liberals are sounding and thinking a lot more like the Nats than a week ago…

King Lear becomes a kingmaker, Hockey’s treachery, and delay is the new denial

It’s probably time to take stock again of the Liberal leadership spill shenanigans.

John Howard has obviously been having a word in a few journos’ ears. Tony Wright penned this piece for The Age yesterday, portraying the Ghost of Wollstonecraft as pulling the strings. It seems Little Johnny couldn’t stand Nick Minchin and the Minchkins getting all the credit for tearing Turnbull down.

I think Hockey’s pilgrimage to Howard on Saturday was staged to suggest that he’s the true heir to the throne, and to imply that Turnbull was an unfortunate interloper. None of those ‘progressive’ hymns in Howard’s broad church! Had they wanted to meet covertly, it wouldn’t have been too hard.

Alex White wrote yesterday on Turnbull’s Cameronisation. If it’s all about following scripts, the Tories’ recent one wouldn’t be a bad one to follow. After all, turning away from the right and talking up green issues has contributed to reviving the UK Conservatives’ electoral chances.

Hockey is obviously keeping his powder dry, so that he can claim he is a unity candidate by not bringing on a spill. That’s the sort of dissimulation for which Howard is famous, but it’s unlikely he’ll be able to bring it off. It’s his second time around as a cuddly frontman for nasty things (think WorkChoices), and he made a hash of it the first time. (See also Peter Martin on his record.) All the talk of some sort of cunning Keating like strategy against the Rudd government’s CPRS forgets that Keating was a superb politician. Hockey is not.

He simply isn’t up to the task, and he probably knows it. He won’t have a lot of credibility as a puppet leader papering over the cracks of a deeply divided party, and it would be risible to think that the events of the last week won’t come back to haunt the Liberals. All talk of Sunrise aside, Rudd’s political machine will eat him for breakfast.

Whether the Liberals would be able to agree on some sort of alternative if the CPRS bills are delayed til February is moot. Certainly all their divisions over climate change will not magically disappear even if Malcolm is whisked off the scene.

It’s not over til it’s over, of course, but speculation has increasingly turned to Turnbull leaving the party and/or parliament. Whatever he decides to do, the ‘dead man walking’ of the press gallery commentary circa early last week (and haven’t some changed their tune?) will come out of all this looking pretty good in many people’s eyes.

Possum’s extremely interesting analysis of the Nielsen poll demonstrates that Turnbull has been appealling to precisely the voters that the Liberals need to be in with any chance of winning the next election – ones currently inclined to vote Labor. I’d have thought that was a lot more meaningful for a serious political party than some sort of ‘protect the furniture and play to the base’ strategy. There’s lots more in Possum’s post which should provide a reality check in terms of how all this has played in the public’s eyes. Liberal MPs and Senators might be well advised to consider that.

Stay tuned for further updates, and you can follow the thing on Twitter as well.

Elsewhere: Some interesting personal reflections on Malcolm Turnbull from Christopher Joye.

Update: New post on firming speculation that Turnbull intends to lead a new party should he lose tomorrow.

Propositions on the Liberal right week of FAIL

Let’s sum up a few things about the CPRS/leadership shenanigans:

(a) It’s been intriguing to see the focus of political discussion narrow to the Parliamentary dramatics. Journalists – and one suspects, many Liberal MPs – appear to have completely lost sight of the effect that Turnbull’s stand might be having on the public. I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a lot of sympathy for him and his position. Yet those normally obsessed with Newspoll now equate politics with a bunch of lunatics gathered in Nick Minchin’s office, rather than even stopping to think about how all this might be playing with voters. I wonder whether Newspoll will be asking questions about the Liberal leadership this weekend – its owners might not like the answers;

(b) The Liberal Right have shown themselves to be completely unelectable crazies. Liberals are not Republicans and Australia is not America. This appears to be news to some, and it’s hard to know why;

(c) Conversely, text messages and phone calls and emails from Liberal party members and Andrew Bolt’s followers do not equate to a shift in public opinion. The Libs’ only chance of being an effective opposition, and gathering votes in the centre, is to go with Turnbull’s position. The much vaunted ‘base’ will not vote Labor in a pink fit, and a stack of Liberal seats would be at risk if a Leader is elected who is a reactionary on Howard era issues such as climate change denialism and industrial relations. That was clear enough from Kevin Andrews’ press conference where most questions were about the past, and his right wing stance. This is John Howard’s poisonous legacy to his party;

(d) Talk of Turnbull’s ‘management style’ is merely code for the Liberal right refusing to be led by one not of their own. ‘Consultation’ means caving in to dinosaurs. Who’s really the arrogant one in this equation? More likely to be Nick Minchin and his mates;

(e) If Turnbull is toppled tomorrow or on Monday, and leaves Parliament, who really believes an Abbott led Liberal Party would retain Wentworth in a by-election? This is the craziness – Members like Michael Johnson in Ryan calling for Turnbull’s ousting while holding a ‘leafy’ and very marginal seat which has many moderate Liberal voters. It’s not the only one. Kelly O’Dwyer in Higgins, for instance, is going to face a lot of pressure to take a stand on climate change and the ETS in the lead up to the by-election for Peter Costello’s former seat. The Liberals’ actual base is multiple and plural, and they can’t hold it by playing only to the revanchists.

Update: Turnbull’s press conference is now on YouTube.

Elsewhere: Politically Homeless.

Elsewhere: Club Troppo, The Stump.

Update: Fresh post – Abbott will stand for the leadership on Monday.

Legacy wars

It was the political debate of last week, and we missed it. But that’s ok – so did most of the rest of the population, I would imagine. The columns of The Australian were full of the ‘legacy wars’ – arising out of Kevin Rudd’s speech at the launch of Paul Kelly’s new book. Rudd argued that – contrary to Kelly’s thesis of a similarity between John Howard and Paul Keating as ‘patriots’ working to modernise Australia along a similar path – that the Howard government had left little in the way of a nation building legacy. This promptly prompted rantings about his hypocrisy (because he’d argued that the history wars were done with when launching Thomas Kenneally’s book), claims that conservative dissent was being repressed, and … well, Rudd appears to have learnt the trick of making the punditariat and the Liberal frontbench rant on cue. Useful politically, that one.

It also probably contributed to the demand – within the Liberal party – to ’stand for something’, which is apparently code for ‘defending the Howard legacy’. This theme inspired Turnbull to get ahead of the pack and raise the tattered banner of individual work contracts. Not so useful politically, that one.

Those interested in the merits of this debate, as opposed to the sound and fury, might find Mungo McCallum’s contribution interesting:

It’s all Kevin Rudd’s fault. Here we are, nearly two years out of the Howard years and happily consigning them to well-deserved oblivion.

And then Rudd has to mention the war; and of course John Howard and Peter Costello lurch out of the political cemetery to boast about the size and quality of their tombstones and pretend they are not really dead after all, and Malcolm Turnbull feels that he has to join in and defend the two people in the world he most wants to forget. Such is the level of discussion in contemporary Australia.

Turnbull one year on; Emo Man’s revenge

Malcolm Turnbull has been opposition leader for one year.

That anniversary has been marked, among other things, by an impassioned speech in the Coalition party room by his predecessor, Dr Brendan Nelson. Nelson argued against any compromise on emissions trading before Copenhagen, and all this has been tied in with a theme that the opposition has to stand for something – the tried and true Liberal verities of individual workplace contracts, of course, being one of those…

Nelson, however, says someone whom he diagnosed as having narcissistic personality disorder can still become PM.

Update: Nelson’s off to be ambassador to NATO (and Kim Beazley to the US).

Malcolm Turnbull’s WorkChoices

As I write, Malcolm Turnbull is on the telly stealing Paul Keating’s lines, ranting and raving about stuff that happened in 1989, and jabbering about neo-liberalism and Hugo Chavez.

It certainly appears that Malcolm couldn’t resist taking the bait laid out for him in Kevin Rudd’s now notorious Monthly article. And can’t resist being the centre of attention.

And it certainly appears that the spectre of the Overshadow has dragged Turnbull and his party to the right.

But can he really be about to die in the ditch over unfair dismissals at a time when people are very concerned about job security? And reject the bill that overturns WorkChoices?

The vigilance of (il)Liberalism never sleeps

Probably one of the most laudable steps taken by the Rudd government has been the attention given by Senator John Faulkner as Special Minister of State to cleaning up the electoral system. Admittedly, this isn’t one of the funky and sexy issues the media likes to highlight, but the importance of the Green Paper on Electoral Reform is profound.

But while most Australians probably had other things on their mind, John Howard’s former Workplace Relations advisor and Alexander Downer’s replacement as Mayo MP, Jamie Briggs, found time on Boxing Day to denounce third party campaigns as a “a growing cancer in our democracy”.

Briggs named GetUp! and the ACTU’s Your Rights at Work campaign as examples of what he was talking about.

I don’t have any particular problem with disclosure of funding for third party campaigns, though I would object to caps on donations. But the hyperbole from Briggs (and no doubt his views are shared by Nick Minchin and others) is absurd and dangerous. Props to Andrew Norton for sounding the alarm. Norton refers to Briggs’ call for disclosure and observes:

Continue reading ‘The vigilance of (il)Liberalism never sleeps’

What if you held an IR scare and no one came?

I’ve noticed some wild leaps of logic, if that’s the right word, in the “analysis” of Julia Gillard’s Forward With Fairness IR bill. Apparently, everything that may have happened in the past that would scare employers (probably including a return to braces and steel capped docs among the well dressed unionists) will. In almost all cases, if you actually look at the detail of the legislation, the claims made are unsustainable. Ambit claims, presumably…

Andrew Crook had a good piece in Crikey yesterday tracing the origins of all this hoohah:

With business cosying up to Kevin, and Malcolm striving for popular relevance, a cadre of crack News Ltd hacks have been dispatched to wage an IR guerilla war by proxy. Union bashing has been the raison d’être of buttoned-up reporters like Brad Norington for years — when Norington refers to the dreaded return of the ‘IR club’ he could easily be talking about himself. But confronted with a watertight consensus after extensive consultation, the Oz has continued to push an adversarial line that attempts to revive the pitched battles of the 1890s.

On Saturday, Norington re-entered the fray, clearly miffed by the lack of love from the Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout. In an excruciating piece, Norington gets close to accusing the business lobby of false consciousness — a charge usually leveled at the Oz’s enemies on the Left. What looks like an off-hand comment about the “weird” direction the IR debate is taken as evidence of a looming stoush. Of course, Ridout’s overall backing of the bill remains strong, subject to qualifications.

Continue reading ‘What if you held an IR scare and no one came?’

Gillard’s new IR laws and the business response

Julia Gillard is certainly capable of a sophisticated negotiating strategy, and it’s been interesting to observe that the process of formulating the legislation to implement Forward With Fairness and replace WorkChoices – while managed largely behind closed doors – was accompanied over the year by a fair bit of crowing from business that they’d extracted more concessions than in the two documents released before last year’s election. However, the ALP caucus and the ACTU also belatedly secured more of what they wanted – particularly in last resort arbitration, multi-enterprise bargaining for low paid workers, good faith bargaining and union entry and records inspections rights. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if such changes were always contemplated, and certainly explicit attention to the needs of workers with poor bargaining power spread across a number of work sites (for instance cleaners or employees in light manufacturing) was part of the election policy. What is entirely predictable is the tenor of the business reaction, which you can get a sense of quickly by reading this story from yesterday’s Australian. Unions are back and the sky will fall in! In fact, the points business objects to really just serve to underpin bargaining. There’s an element of balancing equity with efficiency, which has always been part of the IR framework in Australia, but we certainly haven’t “gone back to the future”. In many ways, the legislation could legitimately have gone further in redressing some of the imbalance of power in the bargaining process.

If, although as one would imagine there’s some equivocation going on, the opposition allow the laws to pass substantially unaltered, the business whining will be futile. That in itself may push the opposition into a more negative stance. The passage of the laws through the Senate early next year could get interesting.

Rudd one year on

Well, having opened a thread that perhaps proves that Ute Man is still out there but not actually supporting Emo Man, it behoves me, I guess, to have a bit of a say about the tenure of the Rudd government to date. To some degree all these sorts of anniversaries are somewhat artificial, as you can easily see in the United States with the fetish of the “first hundred days”. Governments will eventually be judged by the electorate in due season, as Kevin Rudd would say, and as almost all politicians intone (particularly those who are dissatisfied with their contemporary popularity), in the end they will be judged by history – whose verdict is perhaps as mythical as the Judgement of Paris, but never mind that. However, as I was suggesting, if politics and public discussion is cruelled by the vagaries and obsessions of an ever shorter media cycle, a year really is a long time in government, and it is worth taking stock.

It can also be interesting to compare first term governments at this stage of the electoral cycle, and here the obvious contrast – despite all the media beatups – is the absence of major scandal and ministerial resignations compared to both the Hawke and Howard governments. That doesn’t, of course, imply that all the Labor ministers are fabulous, but it is worth observing.

One of the things that’s interested me in the discussion that had already began quite a while before we reached the actual milestone is that in both comments on this blog and in conversations with some friends I’ve seen the sentiment expressed that simply avoiding hearing a daily litany of horrors from the Howard crew is Rudd’s greatest achievement. It might, and no doubt will, be objected that – “lefties would say that, wouldn’t they?” But I think there are a couple of points here. First, there is no doubt that a government with a more humanitarian tinge and an appreciation of propriety and ethics is to be welcomed, and that sentiment – along with the promise keeping – will be a contributor to Labor’s continuing lead in the polls. Secondly, I think The Howard Years has been interestingly timed to stimulate some comparison and to reinforce the whole sense of relief that we don’t have that turgid mob to kick around any more.

But, again, one thing that wore out the Coalition’s welcome with the electorate was the constant “rabbits out of the hat” and the whole bag of divisive tricks, along with the internal ructions and the cockiness of ministers. I agree that the Liberals are still playing at the same game in many ways. John Howard was elected in 1996 as a safe pair of hands and the Libs were “the party of order”, if you like. By the end of their fourth term, they looked like the risky and unsafe proposition and Kevin Rudd’s calm demeanour undoubtedly contributed much to Labor’s victory. WorkChoices was also probably the biggest single mistake the Coalition made, and the related apprehension that worse would follow and more leadership instability also condemned the Howard government to defeat.

But what of policy, and that shibboleth beloved of the punditariat, “the narrative”? Continue reading ‘Rudd one year on’

Government moving too slowly on IR; Essential Research 57-43

…45% of Australians think so, according to this fortnight’s Essential Research poll. As a bit of an addendum to my earlier post about Julia Gillard’s speech last week to the National Press Club on the detail of the Forward with Fairness bills which will shortly be introduced into parliament, I should also note that many Labor MPs have been concerned by reports they’re receiving from constituents about continuing abuses of workplace power. This is more the everyday bastardry that WorkChoices encouraged, rather than the headline anti-union moves of big corporations like Telstra. A lot of voters assumed that WorkChoices had already been “torn up”, and there’s significant pressure on Gillard to bring forward some of the implementation dates for aspects of the new legislation.

The whole “keep business satisfied” implementation agenda might have seemed like a good idea last year. It’s not looking so flash now, particularly as the ACTU finally wakes up to the fact that they’ve effectively been locked out of the policy making process.

Elsewhere: More discussion of the poll at The Poll Bludger. Also interesting is the comparison with ratings of attributes between Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd (with the proviso that the data on Rudd dates from June). Turnbull will be worried at the 47% “out of touch” figure. How do you actually turn that around? Brendan Nelson didn’t do so by emoting and going trucking.

Like a hole in the head

…Was it clever politics for the Liberal Party to preselect one of the (junior) architects of WorkChoices, Jamie Briggs, for the Mayo by-election?

Elsewhere: Pavlov’s Cat isn’t impressed. Tim Dunlop on the spectre of WorkChoices.

Guest post by Senator Rachel Siewert: Award modernisation – what’s going on?

This issue is something I’d planned to write about but have lacked time to do so. Some very important changes to the legal regulation of working conditions are being made in this country largely beneath the radar of media scrutiny – outside the business press. So I’m happy to post this contribution from Greens Senator for Western Australia, Rachel Siewert. – MB

Senator Rachel Siewert is the Australian Greens spokesperson on Industrial Relations.

Massive upheaval is occurring to Australia’s standard employment conditions and minimum wages, with little to no understanding or public attention.

The ‘award modernisation’ process currently underway in the AIRC, following a request from the Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard, will impact on all Australian workers … either directly through loss of conditions or indirectly through lowering the base from which agreements can be made.

While the Rudd Government likes to compare its IR policy with Work Choices (…so it can say things are slightly better than they might have been), a better way of evaluating their policy is to look at the industrial relations system that existed in Australia before the aberration of Work Choices. On this test the Government is failing to provide adequate protection for workers.

Continue reading ‘Guest post by Senator Rachel Siewert: Award modernisation – what’s going on?’