The coalition’s costly obsession with individual workplace agreements

Tony Abbott is treading so carefully on industrial relations it has become excruciatingly fun to watch.

In the last week, Howard has spoken out on industrial relations, we’ve seen the disastrous Grocon-union dispute, more of the workplace bullying debate, continued and unwarranted Fair Work Act criticism and of course, the calls for Abbott to spell out his actual policy on IR.

But the Coalition knows the IR issue threatens to remind the battlers of the inequitable neo-liberal ideology at the heart of their agenda

On Industrial relations, three is the magic number – Abbott is absent on detail and big on the verbigeration of bland three-pronged slogans, they are;

1. Australia has a “militancy problem, a productivity problem, and a flexibility problem”;
2. Abbott assures us Workchoices is “dead, buried and cremated”; and
3. Abbott has repeatedly said he will undertake “cautious, careful, responsible change” (strangely, he has said this some three times already this year) on IR laws.

The mystical number three also appeared when Abbott was forced to publicly rebut the man who in many ways is his political idol, after it was revealed former Prime Minister Howard told a private forum hosted by Westpac last month that ‘‘There is no reason why this country should not go back to the workplace system we had between 1996 and 2005, where you had individual contracts”.

Mr Abbott responded by saying the former PM was ‘‘three Liberal leaders ago. That was then; this is now.’’

Numerology aside (“Hope, Reward, Opportunity” is also currently the Liberal Party’s slogan), where exactly is the Coalition on industrial relations right now?

Abbott hasn’t even used the Grocon dispute as much of opportunity for union bashing, obviously because of his fears for reigniting the 2007 election sentiment.

Minister for Workplace Relations Bill Shorten has called for Abbott ‘‘to bring on the workplace relations debate we have to have.’’

One thing that is clear is there is the obvious risk of Mr Sydney North-Shore, private school boy Abbott being seen as a friend of big business. Industrial relations is historically a crucial part of the Australian political landscape, not because the electorate is obsessed so much about their wages and conditions but because it is a values barometer in our relatively egalitarian culture.

In Abbott’s defence, he is on the record for being the “least enthusiastic” in Howard’s 2005 cabinet when it came to the Workchoices legislation. Abbott was reportedly worried about Workchoices leaving the Coalition on the wrong end of an “us and them” divide. Indeed, Abbott may well take a less hard-line neo-liberal approach on some issues than some of his Liberal colleagues. In this way, industrial relations risks not just alienating the battlers from the Coalition, but splitting the “wets” and the real IR ideologues within the Opposition.

Of course, just because Abbott is a moderate on industrial relations it doesn’t mean he won’t continue to support big business at the expense of the community on other issues - his promise to scrap the mining tax is one obvious example. His policy on industrial relations is often just the way every-day suburban voters are reminded of the Liberal Party’s view on what makes a good society.

But make no mistakes about it; Abbott has hinted at a return to pre-Workchoices Australian Workplace Agreements.

Abbott has said "we don't support statutory individual contracts. We did once, we don't now."

The problem with his stance is that individual workplace agreements already exist under the Fair Work Act, in the form of Individual Flexibility Arrangements (IFA’s).

The IFA was a creation of the Rudd Government under the Fair Work Act. It is in some ways a ghost of Howard’s AWA - an individual statutory contract between an employer and a single employee.

Unlike AWAs, IFAs can only cover a very narrow range of employment matters against an award or agreement - working hours, overtime rates, penalty rates, allowances, and leave loading. By contrast, Workchoices AWAs could cover virtually any aspect of the employment relationship, so long as it met five national basic employment standards.

The more work conditions an IFA can cover, the more it starts to resemble an AWA.

Abbott has said “You do need more flexibility in your workplace arrangements. Individual flexibility agreements must be made more workable and we will do that”.

Deregulating IFA’s will essentially make them AWA – it’s hard to imagine what else Abbott means by his reference to the increasing meaningless “flexibility” term.

What is also confusing is why the Liberal Party as so hung up on individual contracts in the first place.

Prior to 2005 only 2.4% of the Australian workforce were covered by AWAs, but the rate of uptake doubled after the Workchoices amendments which have now been completely taken off the table.

So why hang an election on individual statutory contracts when they are more pressing industrial relations issues to pursue?

The answer might be one of simple philosophy; there are those in the Liberal party who stick to their individualist guns no matter what the practical or political outcomes.

In any event, it is hard to imagine the Coalition returning to power without bringing back AWA’s by another name.

But it should be remembered individual statutory contracts were uncontroversial before Workchoices and IFA’s remain relatively dispute-free.