   #copyright

WorkChoices

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Recent History

   The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, who
   introduced the Australian industrial relations legislation, speaking at
   a press conference on 8 November 2005
   Enlarge
   The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, who
   introduced the Australian industrial relations legislation, speaking at
   a press conference on 8 November 2005

   "WorkChoices" is the collective name of a series of amendments to
   Australian labour law made by the Howard Government in 2005. The
   legislation is the most comprehensive change to industrial relations in
   Australia for almost a century and is a matter of controversy. Although
   the new laws are supported by employer groups such as the Business
   Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and
   Industry, they are bitterly opposed by the Australian labour movement
   principally through the Australian Labor Party and the Australian
   Council of Trade Unions as well as various church groups.

   The amendments were introduced into the House of Representatives on 2
   November 2005 and were accepted by the Senate on 2 December 2005.^ The
   changes came into effect on 27th March 2006.

Scope of the changes

   The changes include:-
     * the formation of a single national industrial system to replace the
       separate state and federal systems for constitutional corporations;
     * the establishment of a body to be known as the Australian Fair Pay
       Commission to replace National Wage Cases at the Australian
       Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC);
     * the streamlining of Certified Agreement and Australian Workplace
       Agreement making, including increasing the maximum agreement life
       from three years to five years;
     * a reduction in allowable award matters;
     * the creation of legislation for five minimum workplace conditions;
     * the exemption of companies with fewer than 101 employees from
       unfair dismissal laws;
     * the exemption of all companies from unfair dismissal laws where a
       dismissal is for a bona fide operational reason;
     * increased restrictions on allowable industrial action;
     * mandating secret ballots for industrial action;
     * discouraging pattern bargaining and industry-wide industrial
       action.

   On October 9, 2005 the Howard Government launched its "WorkChoices"
   guide and announced that some further changes and concessions had been
   made to the package, the concessions widely credited as being the
   result of union lobbying. The Opposition Australian Labor Party
   described it as "sugar-coating a poison pill"; the Australian Council
   of Trade Unions described it as merely a "re-presentation" of the old
   package.

Introduction of the Bill into Parliament

   Eleven Labor MPs who were ejected from the House of Representatives for
   protesting disorderly against the Howard Government's industrial
   relations bill. Left to right: Anthony Albanese, Annette Ellis, Anthony
   Byrne, Maria Vamvakinou, Catherine King, Michael Danby, Dr Craig
   Emerson, Gavan O'Connor, Julia Irwin, Kelly Hoare, Bernie Ripoll.
   Enlarge
   Eleven Labor MPs who were ejected from the House of Representatives for
   protesting disorderly against the Howard Government's industrial
   relations bill. Left to right: Anthony Albanese, Annette Ellis, Anthony
   Byrne, Maria Vamvakinou, Catherine King, Michael Danby, Dr Craig
   Emerson, Gavan O'Connor, Julia Irwin, Kelly Hoare, Bernie Ripoll.

   The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 (Cth) was
   introduced into the Australian House of Representatives on November 2,
   2005 by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin
   Andrews.

   The Labor Party claimed it was not provided with enough copies of the
   Bill when it entered the Parliament. They mounted a campaign against
   the Bill in Parliament throughout the day. During Question Time,
   Opposition members continually interjected while Government members
   were speaking, leading the Speaker (and later the Deputy Speaker) to
   remove 11 of them.^

   The Bill passed through the House of Representatives on 10 November and
   was introduced into the Senate later that day by Special Minister of
   State, Senator Eric Abetz.^ ^The Bill was passed, with amendments, by
   the Senate, by a vote of 35-33 on 2 December 2005.

   The Bill received the Royal Assent on 14 December and the parts
   concerning the Australian Fair Pay Commission, wages for school based
   trainees and apprentices, and redundancy pay for small employers became
   enacted immediately from that date.

   The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations released the first
   set of regulations for the bill on 17 March 2006 and following that the
   complete act - titled in full as the Workplace Relations Act 1996, Act
   No. 86 of 1988 as amended - was proclaimed by Australia's
   Governor-General Michael Jeffery. The act commenced on 27 March 2006.

Opposition to the changes

   Greg Combet, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, tells
   a media conference that "the Australian labour movement will overturn
   this legislation, no matter how long it takes." He was speaking on
   November 2, 2005, shortly after the government introduced its
   legislation into the Australian Parliament.
   Enlarge
   Greg Combet, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, tells
   a media conference that "the Australian labour movement will overturn
   this legislation, no matter how long it takes." He was speaking on
   November 2, 2005, shortly after the government introduced its
   legislation into the Australian Parliament.

   In response to the Howard Government's WorkChoices package, the
   Australian Council of Trade Unions, the peak association for Australian
   trade unions, launched its "Your Rights at Work" campaign opposing the
   changes. The campaign involves mass rallies and marches, television and
   radio advertisements, judicial action, e-activism, and, potentially,
   industrial action.

   The week of action culminated on Friday 1 July 2005 with a "SkyChannel"
   meeting of union delegates and members organised by Unions NSW. The
   main part of the meeting was broadcast from Sydney with links to more
   than 200 locations around New South Wales. According to official
   figures from Unions NSW, over 103,500 attended the meetings, with the
   largest attendances being at being Sydney Town Hall (20,000), the
   Wollongong Entertainment Centre (6,500), the Rooty Hill RSL (5,000),
   Newcastle Panthers Club (4,000). The meeting was followed by a large
   rally in Sydney and events in regional areas. One public opinion poll
   found 60 per cent of respondents were opposed to the industrial
   relations changes.

   Individual State Governments have also opposed the changes. For
   example, The Victorian Government has introduced the Victorian
   Workplace Rights Advocate as a form of political resistance to the
   changes.

   In December 2005, the federal caucus of the Australian Labor Party
   initiated an Industrial Relations Taskforce in order to investigate the
   adverse effects of the legislation, chaired by Brendan O'Connor, with
   special emphasis on the impact on regional and rural communities, women
   and young people. During 2006, the Taskforce travelled to every state
   and territory in Australia, convening meetings with individuals,
   employers, church and community groups and trade unions, collecting
   testimony in order to inform federal Labor's policy response and to
   publicise instances of actual exploitation. An interim report,
   'WorkChoices: A Race to the Bottom' was launched by Opposition Leader
   Kim Beazley at Parliament House, Canberra on 20 June 2006, and widely
   distributed.

Campaigning

   The ACTU's campaign (with an allocated $8 million) triggered a
   Government counter-campaign promoting the reforms. Stage one of the
   campaign preceded the release of the legislation and cost approximately
   $45.7 million, including advertisements, information booklets and a
   call centre.^ A subsequent stage of the campaign has been announced.

   The Government argues that such expenditure is normal procedure when
   introducing radical change, citing the example of the GST advertising.

   The ALP, minor parties and the ACTU have attacked the advertising
   campaign, describing it as party advertising funded from general
   revenue. ACTU President Sharan Burrow has called the government
   advertisements deceitful.^

   The expenditure was challenged in the High Court of Australia by the
   Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on
   the grounds that the expenditure was not approved by Parliament. On
   September 29, the High Court rejected this argument in a majority
   decision.^

   The Business Council of Australia is to spend approximately $6,000,000
   supporting the laws^ and the NSW government is spending approximately
   $300,000 opposing them.

National Day of Protest

   On 15 November 2005, the ACTU organised a national day of protest,
   during which the ACTU estimated 546,000 people took part in marches and
   protests in Australia's state capitals and other cities.^ The rallies
   were addressed by State premiers and religious leaders. Other notable
   Australians, including former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, also spoke in
   opposition to the industrial relations changes. John Howard said that
   the protests will not change his policy and employer groups estimated
   that 95% of the workforce did not attend.

   A second national day of protest is planned on November 30, 2006. There
   are plans to fill the MCG, and Jimmy Barnes is said to be attending on
   the day, along with the leader of the opposition Kim Beazley.

Significant changes

Changing dismissal protection laws for some employees

   Employees of businesses employing up to 100 staff no longer come under
   the protection of unfair dismissal laws, introduced by the Labor
   Government of Paul Keating in 1993. Unfair dismissal protection had
   existed before this either in Awards themselves or through state
   industrial relation commissions. Employees of larger businesses are not
   protected if they are dismissed for 'bona fide operational' reasons.

   The Howard Government argues these laws have stifled business growth
   and meant less jobs. It argues up to 70,000 extra jobs will be created.
   This figure is much disputed. The Government also argues that unfair
   dismissal laws are open to abuse. In the alternative it has offered a
   payment of $4,000 to people who have been unlawfully dismissed to help
   with legal costs.^ The grounds upon which an employee can claim for
   unlawful dismissal are more narrowly restricted than the grounds for
   unfair dismissal; these include grounds such as racial discrimination,
   family commitments and where the dismissal arose as retaliation against
   a complaint from an employee. Further, unlawful dismissal can only be
   remedied through a hearing in the courts, with corresponding delays and
   costs to the employee and employer. Unfair dismissal claims were able
   to be adjudicated by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission,
   without trained lawyers and more expeditiously than a legal process.

Forcing all constitutional corporations into the Federal system

   All constitutional corporations (ie. trading, financial, and foreign
   corporations) are forced into the new WorkChoices system, which the
   Howard Government argued was valid under the Constitution of Australia.
   The Howard Government relied on the corporations power of Section
   51(xx) as the entire basis of its new laws. This has replaced the
   previous system which used this power and the labour power of Section
   51(xxxv) which provides that Commonwealth may make laws with respect to
   "conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of
   industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State"

   At the commencement of the WorkChoices reforms every state and
   territory of Australia had a Labor leader in government. Each state
   lodged a challenge to the Constitutional validity of the WorkChoices
   laws before the High Court of Australia. Various union groups also
   lodged their own challenge in the High Court. The High Court heard
   arguments between 4 May 2006 and 11 May 2006. On 14 November 2006 the
   High Court, by a 5 to 2 majority, rejected the challenge, upholding the
   Government's use of the corporations power as a constitutionally valid
   basis for the WorkChoices reforms.

   While one of the purposes of these changes is to provide a single
   national industrial relations system, in practice, each of the States'
   systems remains in force and continues to apply to employers that are
   not incorporated and trading, financial or foreign organisations. Such
   employers may include sole traders, partnerships, charities and state
   and local government bodies although recent decisions by the New South
   Wales Industrial Relations Commission have included incorporated
   charities within the Federal arena by virtue of their trading
   activities.

Scrapping the "No Disadvantage Test" for agreements

   Prior to the WorkChoices amendments coming into force, Certified
   Agreements; which are referred to as Collective Agreements in the
   amended Workplace Relations Act (CAs) and Individual Australian
   Workplace Agreements (AWAs) had to pass a No Disadvantage Test. This
   test compared a proposed agreement to an underpinning and relevant
   award that had or should have covered employees up until the proposal
   for an agreement. The No Disadvantage Test weighed the benefits of the
   award against the proposed agreement to ensure that, overall, employees
   were no worse off.

   The amended Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires that employers
   provide employees with five minimum entitlements, which cover maximum
   ordinary working hours, annual leave, parental leave, personal/carer's
   leave and minimum pay scales. These five minimum entitlements are
   referred to as the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard.
   However, the Standard will not have any bearing on agreements that were
   certified prior to the commencement of WorkChoices. Notional Agreements
   Preserving State Awards (NAPSAs) will be subject to a 'more generous
   test'. If their conditions are more generous than what is provided for
   under the Standard, those conditions will continue to apply.

   Those who supported the scrapping of the no disadvantage test say that
   it was too complex and argue its removal will create more opportunities
   for unemployed people to be offered a job. The example of "Billy" was
   used in material supporting the Government's position.

   Unions and other groups that remain opposed to WorkChoices say that
   Billy is a perfect example of why the new laws are unfair and will lead
   to bosses exploiting their workers.^

Streamlined process for agreement certification

   Previously, certified agreements, which are collective agreements about
   employment entitlements and obligations, made by an employer directly
   with employees or with unions, had to be lodged and certified in the
   Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).

   The new legislated changes have transferred responsibility for
   overseeing the agreement certification process to the Office of the
   Employment Advocate, which has had some of its other powers of
   investigation transferred to the Office of Workplace Services. Now
   instead of appearing before a Commissioner at the AIRC, parties to a
   collective agreement are only required to make written submissions via
   a simplified lodgment process.

   This new process has been criticised by those opposed to WorkChoices as
   they believe that it will give unions less opportunity to scrutinise
   and intervene where they believe an agreement has been unfairly
   drafted. However the government has stated in response that the
   intention of this part of the Act was to improve the turn-around time
   for agreement certification. In addition the newly amended Act does
   provide for substantial penalties upon employers, employees and unions
   where a collective agreement does not comply with the new regulations
   or includes prohibited content.

Senate Inquiry

   An inquiry into the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill
   2005 was held by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and
   Education Committee, to which the Bill was referred once it was
   introduced into the House of Representatives.

   Five days were allowed for submissions to be made to the committee,
   with the closing date being 9 November. Five days of hearings are
   scheduled to be held at Parliament House in Canberra commencing 14
   November, with the committee reporting to the Senate on 22 November.

   This decision to have a rather short inquiry has been criticised by
   some people who claim that this is an attempt by the Government to
   avoid proper scrutiny of the Bill.^

   As at November, the Senate has received more than 4,500 submissions, of
   which only 173 have been published on the website. The committee has
   not individually acknowledged and published all submissions, due to the
   large number of submissions, at least partially caused by ACTU's
   campaign against WorkChoices, which included setting up a form on its
   website by which people could make a submission .

   On November 14, the Senate Inquiry began its five-day hearing -- in
   which only a fraction of the submissions will be heard -- with the
   submissions of State and Territory Industrial Relations Ministers and
   representatives. The representatives were each allowed only seven
   minutes to address the Inquiry, during which they criticised the
   package as being unconstitutional and undermining the rights and
   conditions of workers.^

Debate and reaction

   The Howard Government argues that the reforms are the next necessary
   step in the deregulation of the Australian economy. Workplace Relations
   Minister Kevin Andrews stated that "We have seen 1.7 million extra jobs
   created in Australia, more than a 14% increase in real wages. Part of
   the reason for that is because of the reforms that we made in 1996."^
   The Government argues that employees will have more choice and
   flexibility and this in turn will lead to higher productivity.^

   Unions, opposition parties and academics argue that there is no
   economic evidence to support the Government's claims that the changes
   will stimulate productivity and raise wages. They argue that
   WorkChoices offers a one-sided choice and flexibility firmly in favour
   of employers and that the régime will leave unskilled and marginalised
   workers worse off. Comparisons have been made between this legislation
   and the Master and Servant Act of the nineteenth century.^ The ACTU
   claims credit for real wage rises over the past decade and point out
   that the Government has opposed every increase to the minimum wage
   since its election; had the AIRC accepted the Government's Living Wage
   submissions, the minimum wage would be lower by more than $50 per week.
   They point to the fact that job applicants can be made to sign an AWA
   as a condition of employment, and that existing employees can be
   unreasonably pressured into signing the contracts through unrestricted
   employer lockouts. Some have argued that the laws may be in
   contravention of ILO Convention No. 98 in that they place restrictions
   on collective bargaining and organisation: Australia is the only
   country in the OECD in which there is no protected right to collective
   bargaining.

   On November 16, 2005, a statement criticising the changes was issued by
   a group of 151 academics, drawn from the fields of economics, law,
   business and industrial relations studies. In the statement, the group
   indicated that they "...share grave concerns about the historic and
   far-reaching changes now proposed for Australia's workplace relations
   and their potential effects upon Australian workplaces, workers, and
   our larger society and economy." With regards to the Government's
   claims that the changes would serve to promote and improve
   productivity, employment and the general economy, the group noted:
   "These assumptions, while repeatedly asserted, are not supported by
   evidence, and are contradicted by much of the empirical evidence that
   is available." In a separate address made the same day to the National
   Press Club, Sydney University professor of industrial law Ron McCallum
   also heavily criticised the Bill, describing some of its clauses as
   "absurd", and maintaining that the "extraordinary re-regulation" went
   much further than regulations in all comparable countries towards
   restricting union negotiation rights and controlling collective
   bargaining processes.^

   Both sides of the debate on WorkChoices agree that industrial relations
   will be a major issue at the next Federal election. The legislation was
   approved, following the allowance of several amendments on November 30
   to gain the support of Senator Barnaby Joyce.

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
