Howard Government decides WorkChoices wasn't fair after all!
Everyone now agrees, WorkChoices stinks
How do you regard a Government that has told us for the past 18 months that WorkChoices provides fair employment arrangements and then decides it should introduce a "Fairness Test"?
Well, you can call us cynical if you like, but we are not convinced that the Prime Minister has had one of those blinding-light-on-the-road-to-Damascus moments and is suddenly more interested in the fair treatment of employees. Howard and his Government have spent a lot of time and money trying to convince the Australian population that the new industrial relations system would provide more choices in employment (and not just for employers) as well as economic benefits of the community.
We don't know much about economics (but we do know what we like) and any new employment arrangements which are targeted solely at reducing the cost of labour to make Australian industry more competitive with cheaper labour internationally, can only really deliver on this by reducing the standard of living of Australian workers. How can it make any other sense?
But now, a little over a year after WorkChoices was introduced, the Government has accepted that as a "brand" it was broadly unattractive to the community. So, cynical and poll-driven as they are, the solution is to never ever mention WorkChoices again. We bet they wish that it were so easy but sadly, an Edsel is always an Edsel.
While the Government chooses to blame the "scare campaign" run by the unions for the hostility in the community to these workplace changes, there has been an overwhelming amount of academic research showing that the introduction of this new system made employees vulnerable, removed their ability to bargain, removed the protections of collective awards and agreements and showed us case after case of kids and vulnerable workers being ripped off.
It was a huge political mistake of the Howard Government to introduce a system primarily aimed at reducing working conditions. Clearly all polling shows that it may (and we really hope will) cost them dearly.
Polling, newspaper and media reports and academic analysis is one thing, but when leaked reports from the Government's own agency responsible for collecting AWA’s showed that the overwhelming majority reduced entitlements without proper compensation and that even those things allegedly protected by law were disappearing as well, then clearly the Government needed to do or spin something.
But when television soap/drama portrays the options for employers in imposing AWA's on reluctant employees, then clearly things really do stink. You can use this link to see how McLeod's Daughters portrayed an employer’s rights to change the employment conditions of an employee without their agreement.
One of the things that we thought so important in the way the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission approves enterprise agreements is the "no net detriment test". This means that before an enterprise agreement is approved by the Commission, the signatories to the agreement need to demonstrate that while some conditions of an Award may have changed in the agreement, there is no net disadvantage to the employees covered by it. This allowed penalty rates and overtime rates to be rolled into a weekly or an annual rate of pay, but only if the employees were not losing out. And it was precisely this sort of test that the Howard government decided should not be provided under WorkChoices. They were quite happy to have open slather.
We think the “fairness” test is a hoax. This is a government that doesn’t understand the concept.
What's happening with Referral Agreements? (back)
Councils are still signing Referral Agreements and there are now more than 80 councils that have agreed under section 146A of the NSW Industrial Relations Act that they will keep their industrial relations within the New South Wales system.
We encourage members to support the signing of Referral Agreements. This simple mechanism allows organisations that might otherwise be affected by WorkChoices, to remain within the New South Wales system.
At some stage will come the crunch with councils not prepared to sign a Referral Agreement and the local government unions will need to decide how this can be handled. There are some councils that have indicated that they see no alternative but the Federal options and some stage, but not yet, we will need to resolve how to properly deal with them.
This is the current list of councils that have signed referral agreements:
And now for something completely different … (back)
Vice President Andrew Spooner is depa’s representative on the Food Authority Partnership. Here follows a contribution from Andrew about the current state of play with food surveillance and local government’s relationship with the NSW Food Authority:
It's a case of everything or nothing. Unless you are one of the 29 Councils involved in the Category B pilot program or attend Steering, Regional or State Committee meetings with the Food Authority then you would probably say nothing.
However, behind the scenes there has been considerable dialogue between depa and the Food Authority about the "nuts and bolts" aspects (inspection frequency, inspection fees & reporting requirements) of the Partnership as outlined in the "Information Package" sent by the Authority to all Councils on 2 April 2007.
The Authority definitely dropped the ball towards the end of last year - failing to provide critical information to assist Councils with the development of their budgets. The Authority has since issued a statement (avoiding the Sorry word) indicating that they "genuinely regret the situation". Like all good partners we accepted their regret and are keen to move on.
So when will it all start? It is highly unlikely (despite recent media hype about food regulation matters) that the legislation to enact the changes to the Food Act will make it into the autumn session of Parliament to meet the original commencement date of 1 July 2007. At this stage the Authority’s best guess for commencement is September 2007.
The Authority likes to boast that lots of Councils are conducting a Category B Pilot. There are actually only 29 councils which are doing nothing more than what they already do. However, without the finalisation and implementation of the information contained in the "Information Package" into the pilot, councils are really only “trailing” by continuing to do what they already do. It would be good to have a proper trial with new councils expanding their food surveillance role into Category B.
It appears that the Authority is listening to concerns raised about the "Information Package" and is planning to amend much of the information that we raised objection about, in particular the onerous reporting requirements. The amended reporting format will then be provided to Councils in the Pilot to trial.
So what should you do? Get a copy of the information package and consider the implications the draft proposals will have on your organization. There are three critical questions: Can you provide all the information contained in the "Draft Council Report Format"? What impact will the Schedule of retail food businesses and inspection frequencies have on staff levels and income at your Council? Is the proposed fee structure workable?
While the Authority has not set a time frame for comments on the Information Package, do it now. This is your chance to make a change. If you need any assistance contact Andrew Spooner on 46454328.
Something old, something blue … (back)
But first, the old.
Health & Building Surveyor Conference Reunion
Date: 31 August 2007
Time: 12.30pm till “whenever”
Venue: The Harlequin Inn, Bledisloe Room,
1st Floor, 152 Harris Street, Pyrmont
Cost: Whatever you decide to eat or drink!
You are invited to catch up with fellow Health & Building Surveyors, past and present, from City or Country, those working with Councils or privately at a Health & Building Surveyor Conference Reunion.
The proposed Health & Building Surveyors Conference Reunion is open to all Health & Building Surveyors, past and present from anywhere in Australia. The success of the reunion depends on everyone making an effort to contact fellow Health & Building Surveyors.
Could you please confirm your attendance via email to: gary.sawyer@canadabay.nsw.gov.au
Jody is going on holidays (back)
Jody will be on eight weeks leave from Friday 1 June to Thursday 26 July. We had she has a great holiday and in her absence Terri Mitchell will be taking her place. Please be nice to her. Jody has told her how terrific you all are and we wouldn't want anyone to make a liar of her!
Kerry Hunt
President
Ian Robertson
Secretary
