tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/work-choices-796/articlesWork Choices – The Conversation2020-05-27T20:08:31Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1394692020-05-27T20:08:31Z2020-05-27T20:08:31ZMorrison government invites unions to dance, but employer groups call the tune<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week proposed a new deal in industrial relations, bringing together the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-27/scott-morrison-industrial-relations-workers-coronavirus/12289766?section=politics">government, employers and unions</a> to agree on reforms to create jobs and lift the economy in the post-CIVD-19 pandemic recovery phase.</p>
<p>“"We’ve booked the room, we’ve hired the hall, we’ve got the table ready,” <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-26/scott-morrison-industrial-relations-business-unions-coronavirus/12287072">he said on Tuesday</a>. “We need people to get together and sort this stuff out.”</p>
<p>Comparisons have been made with the “accords” of the Hawke and Keating Labor years between 1983 and 1991. </p>
<p>It’s not the same.</p>
<p>The Morrison government is simply recasting an agenda that business groups have pushed for the past decade, and inviting unions (and other stakeholders) into the room.</p>
<h2>The Hawke-Keating accord era</h2>
<p>This is a long way from the seven accords agreed between the Hawke-Keating governments and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. </p>
<p>The agreements secured union support for the government’s economic reform program by promising improvements in the “social wage” in exchange for unions curbing claims for pay rises.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-explainer-the-prices-and-incomes-accord-75622">Australian politics explainer: the Prices and Incomes Accord</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As a result, landmark social improvements, including the establishment of Medicare and guaranteed employer contributions to superannuation, were achieved for all Australians.</p>
<p>As the accords wore on, though, unions paid a heavy price as “efficiency” became an element in deciding the merits of claims for higher wages. The last accord, for example, ended centralised wage-fixing and ushered in enterprise bargaining. This did more for business productivity than for employee gains.</p>
<h2>The WorkChoices era</h2>
<p>The election of John Howard in 1996 buried the accord era. His government embraced an overtly anti-union posture, culminating in the 2006 “WorkChoices” legislation that allowed individual workplace agreements. Howard championed this as giving flexibility to both employers and employees. But it really shifted the balance in favour of employers. The backlash helped end Howard’s reign in 2007. </p>
<p>The Labor government of Kevin Rudd then brought in the Fair Work Act, which reinstituted union-centred collective bargaining. </p>
<p>Since then the business lobby has fought back on two fronts: continuing to campaign for deregulation, and developing strategies (including through litigation) to enable employers to sidestep the Fair Work Act’s collective bargaining provisions. </p>
<p>The success of this approach for many employers largely explains the ACTU’s “Change the Rules” campaign before the 2019 election. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/where-to-now-for-unions-and-change-the-rules-117583">Where to now for unions and 'change the rules'?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Industrial relations has therefore remained hotly contested. Prior to the COVID-19 crisis it was almost like a war of attrition. The Coalition’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fall-out-from-setka-affair-could-give-coalition-easier-passage-of-union-bill-120586">Ensuring Integrity Bill</a> exemplifies its aggressive agenda. It would have enabled union officials to be removed from office, and unions deregistered, for minor breaches of workplace laws. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/louts-thugs-bullies-the-myth-thats-driving-morrisons-anti-union-push-123688">'Louts, thugs, bullies': the myth that's driving Morrison's anti-union push</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Lay down your guns</h2>
<p>Now the prime minister wants everyone to put down their weapons. </p>
<p>In fact this has already occurred in the past two months, with the government, businesses and unions co-operating over emergency measures to deal with the pandemic. </p>
<p>Unions have agreed, for example, to the removal of award restrictions, enabling changes to business operations and work-from-home arrangements. They pushed hard for the JobKeeper wage subsidy scheme.</p>
<p>But how much more will union leaders be prepared to concede when it comes to considering permanent changes to workplace regulation?</p>
<h2>Battleground issues</h2>
<p>The scope for consensus is limited, especially given four of the five items on the government’s agenda align with <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-the-time-for-tired-arguments-employer-group-unveils-industrial-agenda-20200519-p54uf2.html">that of business organisations</a> such as the Australian Industry Group. </p>
<p>First, casuals and fixed-term employees. </p>
<p>This will be the most hotly fought area. The federal government is likely to address business concerns about the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-defines-casual-work-federal-court-ruling-highlights-a-fundamental-flaw-in-australian-labour-law-139113">Federal Court ruling</a> last week that “permanent casuals” have a right to paid leave as well as their casual loading. The likely outcome is a new statutory definition of “casual” to prevent this. </p>
<p>For unions, the court decision shuts down the ability of employers to treat workers as casuals long-term. A possible compromise might involve ensuring casuals have a legal right to convert to permanent employment after 12 to 18 months.</p>
<p>Second, “greenfields” agreements for new projects. </p>
<p>Employers in the resources and construction sectors have long complained they are compelled to negotiate with a union for new project agreements. Unions are unlikely to be willing to give this up. </p>
<p>Third, enterprise bargaining.</p>
<p>Employer groups complain the Fair Work Commission’s strict approach to the “better off overall test” and other technical requirements make reaching enterprise agreements too difficult. The unions contend some employers have perverted enterprise bargaining through tactics such as getting carefully selected employees to vote for substandard agreements. There is little room for common ground here.</p>
<p>Fourth, award simplification. </p>
<p>Employer groups have argued that wage-theft scandals are really due to awards being too complex. Yet we have gone from several thousand federal and state awards <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-a-complex-system-is-not-to-blame-for-corporate-wage-theft-126279">to 122 awards</a> (one for each industry). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/all-these-celebrity-restaurant-wage-theft-scandals-point-to-an-industry-norm-131286">All these celebrity restaurant wage-theft scandals point to an industry norm</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is hard to see unions agreeing to (for example) removing leave entitlements from awards when they are arguing in a case before the Fair Work Commission for pandemic leave to be included in awards.</p>
<p>Fifth, compliance and enforcement.</p>
<p>This is the one area where employee gains might be achieved, if the government makes good on its commitment to make systemic underpayment of workers a criminal offence.</p>
<p>Overall, however, the Morrison government’s agenda is skewed towards the reform ambitions of the business community without offering any equivalent of the social wage benefits of the original accord. </p>
<p>Unions may well regard his peace proposal as a request to surrender. They won’t, of course, and will try to ensure their concerns about wage stagnation and exploitation of workers in the gig economy form part of the coming discussions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Forsyth is undertaking an Australian Research Council-funded project on trade union training with collaborators from the University of Melbourne, the ACTU and the Trade Union Education Foundation. He blogs on workplace issues at: <a href="https://labourlawdownunder.com.au/">https://labourlawdownunder.com.au/</a></span></em></p>Scott Morrison’s call for a new deal in industrial relations has been compared to the accords of the Hawke and Keating Labor years. It isn’t the same.Anthony Forsyth, Professor of Workplace Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1049492018-10-22T14:29:03Z2018-10-22T14:29:03ZIt’s time to take a new, more creative approach to career counselling<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240998/original/file-20181017-41153-8sy7wz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Choosing a career path is often a complex matter.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world of work is changing all the time. In the past, people would probably choose one career and stick to it for the rest of their lives, gradually climbing up the ladder with clearly demarcated and structured relationships. They might even remain at one company throughout their working lives. </p>
<p>But today, people move between careers and jobs several times; they have to navigate many work-related transitions.</p>
<p>The problem is that career counselling hasn’t, for the most part, adapted to these new realities. In the developing world, <a href="https://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/cjc/index.php/rcc/article/view/2128/1974">traditional career counselling</a> approaches are still the order of the day. Young people – usually in their second last or last year of secondary schooling, and who are able to afford such a service – consult a professional career counsellor. </p>
<p>They are asked questions about their personal and family history, then complete a few interest and personality inventories. They may also write a set of aptitude tests, answer questions about their study habits and attitudes, and then receive what amounts to career education or career guidance.</p>
<p>For the most part, this approach is no longer working satisfactorily in a rapidly changing world. I am involved in many research projects, task teams, as well as in an advisory capacity, and the situation is by and large the same everywhere: alarmingly high tertiary dropout rates are related in part to undecidedness or career indecision. As <a href="http://jsaa.ac.za/index.php/sajhe/article/viewFile/2558/1847">my research</a> has shown, students often discover that the degree they’ve chosen doesn’t interest them. They become indecisive and unsure about what they want to do as a career and feel stuck.</p>
<p>Based on <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03069885.2018.1504202">my own research</a>, and drawing from different approaches to career counselling that have enjoyed success in the developed world, I believe that it’s time for developing countries to approach career counselling differently; more respectfully. One approach, which we tested, was having conversations with students in which they tell their stories, rather than simply writing down answers to aptitude test. </p>
<p>Research <a href="https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319669533">has shown</a> that encouraging people to tell their stories in career counselling settings has direct, positive results. It enhances people’s career adaptability and career resilience. This makes them more employable. When people share their autobiographies, they can be helped to identify their key life themes and find out what really drives or motivates them. </p>
<p>This sort of approach has also <a href="https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319669533">been shown</a> to improve people’s chances of finding sustainable, decent work.</p>
<h2>Telling stories</h2>
<p>“<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rb8oIJTd6Y">Storytelling</a>” is already widely used in career counselling in the US, Western Europe and Australia, among other places. Some of my colleagues and I have begun to introduce it in South Africa. Our <a href="http://jsaa.ac.za/index.php/sajhe/article/viewFile/2558/1847">research</a> has conclusively confirmed the vast potential of the approach.</p>
<p>This sort of career counselling involves asking people not just to fill in aptitude tests or assessment sheets, but to also explain what drives or motivates them. This would centre on their key life themes – for instance, a candidate who says “I want to help people who are being hurt or bullied or do not have a voice” and who talks about sympathy or compassion or caring a great deal might be well suited to law, nursing, social work, psychology, or theology. </p>
<p>These life themes can be uncovered by, for instance, asking people about their earliest recollections (in the case of individual assessment) or, in group-based contexts, their biggest challenges while growing up. People are, for instance, also asked to tell the career counsellor who their role models were when they grew up; who their current role models are, and what they regard as their greatest strengths and areas for growth.</p>
<p>The ultimate aim is to help people not only choose a career and “find work” but also to make meaning of their career lives, find a sense of purpose and hope, design a successful life, and make meaningful social contributions. </p>
<p>This approach calls for listening and repeated reflection. Counsellors who are trained in the method create a ‘safe’ space for people (help them feel sufficiently contained) to narrate stories about their lives and their work. Ideally, people who undergo this sort of counselling should emerge with a deeper understanding of who they are and how this might play out in their work. </p>
<h2>Going forward</h2>
<p>Of course, it will take time and training for career counsellors to start embracing this sort of approach. It took me more than a decade and a half of applying the new approach in my private practice (and constantly refining it) before feeling that I have mastered it to a satisfactory degree. </p>
<p>First, relevant stakeholders will have to accept that a different approach is required by career counsellors to respond appropriately to large-scale changes in the world of work. </p>
<p>Second, universities’ psychology (and education) departments will need to adjust their curricula, since it is here that future career counsellors are trained. I am training Master’s students in educational and counselling psychology in this approach, and their feedback about the course is consistently positive and inspiring. </p>
<p>Those who are already working as career counsellors could undergo further training to develop new, different approaches that are more in keeping with the demands posed by the changing world of work.</p>
<p>Career counsellors’ allegiance should be solely to their clients. Given this fact, and the fact that research has shown how valuable this and other different, more modern approaches to career counselling can be, it would be good to see them more widely in action.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104949/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kobus Maree receives funding from the National Research Foundation. </span></em></p>Research has shown that encouraging people to tell their stories in career counselling settings has direct, positive results.Kobus Maree, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/806312017-07-06T11:54:32Z2017-07-06T11:54:32ZGrattan on Friday: Everything’s going Bill Shorten’s way<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177095/original/file-20170706-11397-1jvh7vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The fight over penalty rates is an issue made for Bill Shorten's skill set.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paul Miller/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bill Shorten has been on holidays this week. Probably just as well. The “energizer bunny” would have felt the need to be out every day, as usual. His absence left more room for the fractured Liberals.</p>
<p>Shorten’s extraordinary political luck continues, as Tony Abbott rampages, to the despair or fury of frustrated colleagues. </p>
<p>But it is not just his opponents that have been raining political gifts on Labor. Last weekend saw the start of the phase-in of the Fair Work Commission’s decision to cut Sunday penalty rates for retail, hospitality, fast-food and pharmacy workers.</p>
<p>Admittedly this isn’t WorkChoices. But for Shorten it could become a pale version of it. Hundreds of thousands of employees stand to lose, very many of whom are low-income earners. And it’s not just those directly affected. Think of parents who have kids doing some Sunday shifts. And consider the potential for a scare campaign about other sectors.</p>
<p>Shorten has a clear-cut policy to sell. A Labor government would legislate to reverse the commission’s decision and prevent a repeat.</p>
<p>This is an issue made for Shorten’s skill set. As a former union leader, he’s effective at rallies and at home in workplace conversations. He can mesh his campaign with that of the union movement, which has plenty of feet on the ground. There can be photo opportunities at businesses that decide not to cut their employees’ rates.</p>
<p>The opposition will potentially lose support among those in small business who favour the rates cut. But Shorten can reckon that most of them would be voting Coalition anyway.</p>
<p>There is a social logic and an economic rationale for lowering Sunday penalty rates. You can say that these days Sunday is little different from Saturday, for which penalty rates have been less. The economic argument is that businesses will be inclined to put on extra workers, or in some cases open on Sundays, if rates are not as high.</p>
<p>But there is a disconnect between the economics and the politics. </p>
<p>What would make sense if setting rates from scratch is political poison when it is a matter of changing the status quo. It’s the same difficulty a government has when removing or reducing access to a benefit.</p>
<p>Also, even assuming there’ll be a gain in employment – which some dispute – it is unlikely to show up quickly, given the phase-in.</p>
<p>The pain will be felt before any gain. Anyway, that gain will be difficult to separate from other factors affecting employment. Those suffering a cut in wages will be able to identify its cause; people getting jobs that mightn’t have been there before won’t usually make a direct link.</p>
<p>The government knows penalty rates is dangerous ground for it. While it makes the economic case in a desultory way, it is more likely to emphasise that it was the umpire’s decision.</p>
<p>On both sides of politics there’s now a feeling the next election is Shorten’s to lose. But that in itself is a reason for a few Labor jitters. There could be nearly two years before the election; the favourite doesn’t always win the race; the sour mood in voterland carries its risks for both sides (though mostly for the government); Shorten lacks charisma and always lags behind Malcolm Turnbull as preferred prime minister.</p>
<p>Shorten is something of a prisoner of his success. With Labor in a sustained lead in two-party terms, he needs to maintain that advantage. If the Coalition hauled up to equal, the climate would quickly change, fuelled by the media, sections of which are feral.</p>
<p>While it’s extremely unlikely Shorten would be replaced before the election, any serious revival of the Coalition in the polls would trigger a rash of speculation about the ambitions of Anthony Albanese.</p>
<p>A taste of what Shorten can expect as the election draws closer came with Daily Telegraph’s Wednesday front page fake news story reporting a Shorten government’s first 100 days. Under the heading “NOW HERE’S YOUR BILL”, it read: “Workers laid off. Record tax rates. Rents hit new high.” </p>
<p>In the Shorten office they had a good laugh. They can take comfort in the fact the Tele’s clout in Sydney’s west isn’t what it used to be.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177110/original/file-20170706-5026-1qsi89v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177110/original/file-20170706-5026-1qsi89v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177110/original/file-20170706-5026-1qsi89v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177110/original/file-20170706-5026-1qsi89v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177110/original/file-20170706-5026-1qsi89v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177110/original/file-20170706-5026-1qsi89v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177110/original/file-20170706-5026-1qsi89v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Much of the political risk Shorten faces revolves around tax. Labor’s policy is to reimpose the deficit levy on higher-income earners (it expired on June 30). So if there were a change of government these people would face two extra taxes – that levy and the budget’s increase in the Medicare levy, proposed to kick in from 2019. They would have a marginal tax rate of 49.5%.</p>
<p>Labor opposes the government’s proposal for tax cuts for big companies but has yet to say what it would do about the already-legislated tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses, phased in over coming years. While it will keep the cut for small businesses (up to A$2 million or perhaps $10 million turnover), the medium-sized businesses (up to $50 million turnover) are likely to take a hit.</p>
<p>If that turns out to be the decision (expected before the end of this year) it will cause Shorten grief with the business sector – more than his stand on penalty rates will. What to do about these legislated company tax cuts looms as one of the most important policy judgements Labor has to make in coming months.</p>
<p>Shorten’s opponents are still struggling to find the right negative with which to hit him.</p>
<p>There was an unfulfilled expectation he’d be much damaged by the trade union royal commission. Turnbull has tried to cast him as the friend of billionaires.</p>
<p>Recently, Shorten was hammered not just by the government but in the media for his nay-saying response to the budget, including opposing the Medicare levy hike for those on incomes under $87,000. While the Labor frontbench was divided over the levy stand, it did fit squarely into the wider Shorten narrative of protecting lower-income earners.</p>
<p>Labor also came under fire for its opposition to the government’s Gonski 2.0 package – its stance on this seemed to me much more dubious in policy terms than its attitude on the Medicare levy.</p>
<p>So far, the criticisms of its policy positions haven’t harmed the opposition in the polls.</p>
<p>One reason Labor is proving hard for the Coalition to dent is because of what the public are not saying about Shorten’s team. People aren’t saying it is divided and fighting internally. That stark contrast with the other side is a boon for an aspiring prime minister.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80631/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For Bill Shorten, cuts to Sunday penalty rates could become a pale version of WorkChoices.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/559392016-03-14T05:50:51Z2016-03-14T05:50:51ZFactCheck Q&A: can foreign seafarers be paid $2 an hour to work in Australian waters, under laws passed by Labor?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114832/original/image-20160311-11264-twnp47.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Employment Minister Michaelia Cash and the opposition's Penny Wong appearing on Q&A with host Tony Jones.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation is fact-checking claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VHii8ydj7IE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, March 7, 2016.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>MATTHEW LAWRENCE (audience member): I’m an unemployed Australian merchant seafarer. Why would any government in their right mind replace tax paying Australian seafarers with exploited foreign seafarers working on 457 visas, working for as low as $2 an hour?</p>
<p>… MICHAELIA CASH: Thank you very much for the question. Just to be sort of sure here, everything that you are referring to is currently happening under the legislation that the Labor Party brought in, in 2012…<strong>– Federal Minister for Employment and Women, Michaelia Cash, responding to audience member Matthew Lawrence <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4405538.htm">on Q&A</a>, March 7, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>For Australian miners, manufacturers or other firms, it can be cheaper to send cargo by sea – from one Australian port to another – than sending it by road or rail.</p>
<p>On Q&A, an unemployed merchant seafarer said Australian seafarers could replaced by foreign seafarers working on 457 visas, working for as little as $2 an hour. </p>
<p>The question came after <a href="http://www.mua.org.au/noise_outside_garners_q_a_attention">the Maritime Union of Australia</a> (MUA) had spent weeks trying to get a question put to the panel on seafaring jobs. According to the MUA, audience member <a href="http://www.mua.org.au/mua_member_matt_lawrence_on_abc_qanda">Matthew Lawrence</a> is a union member.</p>
<p>This has been a controversial issue for months, after the government granted aluminium producer Alcoa a <a href="http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/2016_01_13_moves_to_end_illegal_industrial_action.asp">temporary licence</a> in 2015 to use a ship crewed by foreign workers <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/alcoa-under-fire-for-hiring-foreign-ship-crew-to-move-cargo/6937030">to transport alumina</a> between Western Australia and Victoria. The firm wanted to use the foreign-manned vessel for the domestic route after selling its own ship, the ageing MV Portland.</p>
<p>The union protested the granting of the temporary licence, saying <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/muanational/pages/3455/attachments/original/1447048738/MV_Portland_Crew_Statement.pdf?1447048738">Australian workers may have been able to do the job</a>. Alcoa <a href="http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/2016_01_13_moves_to_end_illegal_industrial_action.asp">said</a> it sought a quote for the job from a company with Australian-flagged ships, but received no reply.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00055/Html/Text#_Toc327452028'">Federal Court ruled in 2015</a> that while there were problems with the way the government notified interested parties about Alcoa’s application, the licence remained valid.</p>
<p>The issue was debated at length on Q&A and you can read the comments in context in the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4405538.htm">transcript here</a>.</p>
<p>This FactCheck aims to answer two key questions about what’s allowed under Australian law: </p>
<ul>
<li>Can foreign seafarers on as little as $2 an hour work on domestic shipping routes in Australian waters?</li>
<li>And was Employment Minister Michaelia Cash right that this is allowed under legislation passed by Labor in 2012?</li>
</ul>
<h2>Can foreign seafarers on $2 an hour work on domestic shipping routes in Australian waters?</h2>
<p>It is true foreign crew on roughly US$2 an hour can work on domestic shipping routes in Australian waters – though only under certain conditions. </p>
<p>But it is wrong to say this can happen using 457 visas. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00055/Html/Text#_Toc327452028">Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012</a>, passed by the Gillard government (and <a href="http://www.mua.org.au/shipping_reform_passing_parliament_will_save_australia_s_shipping_industry">supported by the Maritime Union of Australia</a>), allows for the granting of temporary licences, subject to certain conditions.</p>
<p>These temporary licences allow companies to use foreign ships and foreign crews working under a <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/Spec">special purpose visa</a> to transport goods between Australian ports.</p>
<p>These foreign workers can be paid under “existing international arrangements” for the first two domestic voyages in Australian coastal waters.</p>
<p>What’s that mean in wage terms? Brandt Wagner, head of the Transport and Maritime Unit at the International Labour Organisation, an agency of the United Nations in Geneva, told The Conversation by email that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_250409.pdf">current minimum monthly basic pay or wage figure for able seafarers</a>, which became effective on January 1, 2016, is currently US$614. The International Labour Organisation does not refer to an hourly figure but only the monthly figure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The International Transport Workers’ Federation says a typical able seafarer may work around <a href="http://www.itfseafarers.org/files/seealsodocs/33560/itfuniformtcccba20122014.pdf">around 263 hours a month</a> (40 hours a week plus 103 hours of overtime). </p>
<p>That gets you an average hourly rate of around US$2.33 (roughly A$3.11 in Australian dollars). A little over, but not far off the figure cited by Matthew Lawrence on Q&A. This rate is well below the Australian award wage.</p>
<p>Dean Summers, an inspector with the <a href="http://www.itfglobal.org/en/transport-sectors/seafarers/">International Transport Workers’ Federation</a> (ITF), said the ITF was aware of a foreign-flagged vessel working in Australian waters that paid close to $US2 an hour for foreign seafarers working on the vessel.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The already paltry wage is not a requirement and there are many ships trading on our coast that are not paying the US$2.10 figure as it is not regulated… The reality is that there are zero minimum wages for international seafarers. The international shipping lobbyists quote an International Labor Organisation minimum rate of US$1000 per month but that is a voluntary figure and completely unenforceable in any jurisdiction.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read his full response <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-the-international-transport-workers-federation-and-maritime-union-of-australia-56270">here</a>. </p>
<p>Under the law, however, a temporary licence holder is allowed to use foreign crews paid under existing international arrangements for only the first two domestic voyages per temporary licence granted. </p>
<p>A spokesman for Employment Minister Michaelia Cash told The Conversation by email that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The true situation on foreign worker wages is that when a foreign vessel operates domestically (which can only happen under a temporary licence), the crew are paid under whatever existing international arrangements apply on that vessel for the first two domestic voyages only. From the third domestic voyage onwards, crew on foreign vessels must be paid no less than the Australian Award. The Australian Award (set by the Fair Work Commission) expressly includes pay rates for workers on foreign vessels … Any suggestion that temporary licences are being used to engage a foreign crew on $2 an hour as a permanent replacement for Australian crew is wrong and nothing more than a scare campaign of misinformation being run by the MUA and Labor.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the spokesman’s full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesman-for-michaelia-cash-and-penny-wong-56131">here</a>, as well as a comment from a spokeswoman for Opposition Senate Leader Penny Wong, who was part of the same Q&A discussion.</p>
<p>So yes, foreign seafarers working for roughly US$2 an hour can work on ships moving cargo between Australian ports, as long as it’s on a foreign vessel operating under a temporary licence. But this can only happen on the first two domestic voyages.</p>
<h2>Was the minister right that this is allowed under legislation passed by Labor in 2012?</h2>
<p>The short answer is yes, Senator Cash is right. </p>
<p>As established above, the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00055/Html/Text#_Toc327452028">Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012</a> passed by the Gillard government expressly allows for companies to apply for a temporary licence to use a foreign ship with a foreign crew moving material from one part of coastal Australia to another.</p>
<p>Among the objects of the Act is promotion of a viable shipping industry that contributes to the broader Australian economy and facilitation of the long term growth of the Australian shipping industry.</p>
<p>The work must first be advertised locally to give local ships an opportunity to respond to the work.</p>
<p>So why is this even up for debate? It’s because in the MV Portland case, the Maritime Union of Australia <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2015/187.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%22Ms%20JD%20Williams%22">argued in court</a> that problems with the way Alcoa’s application for a temporary licence was advertised may have put local operators at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>The Federal Court <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2015/187.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%22Ms%20JD%20Williams%22">decided</a> while the government didn’t publish the notice in compliance with the law, the temporary licence was still valid.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Foreign seafarers working for roughly US$2 an hour <em>can</em> work on ships moving cargo between Australian ports, as long as it’s on a foreign vessel operating under a temporary licence. But this can only happen on the first two domestic voyages. </p>
<p>It is wrong to say this can happen using 457 visas. </p>
<p>The minister was right to say those foreign seafarer and temporary licence rules are covered by the legislation passed by the Labor government in 2012. <strong>– Joanna Howe</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound analysis. The author correctly notes that the current law, passed under the last Labor government in 2012, does allow for firms to apply for and be granted temporary licences that allow the use of foreign-manned vessels to transport goods from one Australian port to another. This is subject to conditions, including that the work be advertised locally first and that the licence holder use foreign workers for no more than the first two domestic voyages undertaken under the licence. </p>
<p>Given the International Labour Organisation puts the minimum wage for able seafarers at US$614 a month, and given that a standard month of work would be around 260 hours, it is fair to say this works out at an average wage of between US$2 and US$3 an hour. <strong>– Tess Hardy</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><em>UPDATE: This story was updated at 11.04am AEST on March 15 to include quotes from a spokesman from the International Transport Workers Federation, and a link to his full response <a href="https://theconversation.com/full-response-from-the-international-transport-workers-federation-and-maritime-union-of-australia-56270">here</a>.</em></p>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55939/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tess Hardy has previously received ARC Linkage funds and separate funding from the Fair Work Ombudsman.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joanna Howe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Q&A, an unemployed merchant seafarer said Australian seafarers could replaced by foreign seafarers working on 457 visas, working for as little as $2 an hour. We check the facts.Joanna Howe, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/33702011-09-14T02:17:08Z2011-09-14T02:17:08ZWhat’s the point of debating the carbon tax?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3562/original/no_carbon_tax_aap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Argument has raged outside parliament - is there anything left to say inside?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It all started in February when Prime Minister Julia Gillard <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/climate-change-framework-announced">announced</a> her government would seek to introduce a carbon tax. </p>
<p>This signalled the start of a policy debate marathon that still shows no sign of slowing down. Is it time the debate stopped?</p>
<p>It’s been a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/we-need-detail-on-carbon-tax-labor-mps/story-fn59niix-1226018052084">hard slog for the government</a>. The strategy of initially releasing the carbon tax concept, without details, attracted much derision from some commentators early in the year. The claims of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j4-PdYo6QA">Gillard having “lied”</a> to Australians became a major driver of the political debate. </p>
<p>Furthermore, opinion poll after opinion poll showed a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-06/rudd-preferred-labor-leader/2872424">fall in the government’s support</a>. More concerning for the government has been the fact that, even after the release of the carbon tax details and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYBOWAsrJK8&feature=related">accompanying advertisements</a>, an increasing percentage of the public seems to be <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillard-failing-to-sell-carbon-tax-poll-finds-20110717-1hk8w.html">supporting the opposition</a>.</p>
<p>While the government has tried to deal with these problems, Tony Abbott appears to have succeeded in a simple task: <a href="http://images.smh.com.au/file/2011/09/13/2621816/Coalition%20carbon%20tax%20talking%20points%20talking%20points.pdf">saying “no” to the carbon tax</a>. If opinion polls are anything to go by, Mr Abbott’s argument has resonated with a significant number of voters who are concerned about the impact of a new tax.</p>
<p>There have been rallies, forums, speeches and publicity stunts from both sides of the carbon tax argument. In this sense, the public has been “treated” to a lengthy debate on the merits of the government’s carbon tax proposal.</p>
<p>This week the debate entered a new stage when the government finally introduced the package of 18 carbon tax bills <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/introduction-clean-energy-bill-2011-canberra">to parliament</a>. </p>
<p>But the question is “what’s the point with debating the issue now?” After all, the government appears to have the numbers to pass the bills and the opposition has been unsuccessful in swaying the independents in parliament to their cause. </p>
<p>In Australia’s system of Westminster governance, one of the opposition’s roles is to question the government’s legislation in parliament. It could be seen as a dereliction of duty if the Coalition was to simply pass the bills because the government has the numbers. </p>
<p>Indeed, a robust debate, regardless of the impending result, would serve the interests of advancing Australia’s democratic tradition.</p>
<p>Of course the carbon tax is not the first controversial bill that has been debated in parliament even when the final outcome has been apparent. </p>
<p>The Howard Government campaigned on its desire to introduce a GST at the <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/elections/1998/">1998 election</a>, leading to months of public debate. </p>
<p>While the Howard Government eventually lost the two-party-preferred vote to Labor, it was still able to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and argued it had a mandate to implement the new tax system. </p>
<p>Despite the lengthy and passionate debates <em>outside</em> parliament, the bills were still debated <em>in</em> parliament. </p>
<p>The Howard Government’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/work-choices-ads-cost-121m/story-e6frg6n6-1111114652423">WorkChoices</a> provides another example of parliament debating bills even when their passage was a <em>fait accompli</em>. In fact, when the Howard Government introduced the WorkChoices bills, parliamentary debate was almost superfluous as it held a majority in the Senate. </p>
<p>So while it may seem strange that the opposition still seeks to debate the carbon tax in parliament, it is important their concerns are aired in the appropriate institutions of governance. </p>
<p>Ultimately these debates will feature in the media and will continue to draw attention to a policy that does not appear to be popular with voters. </p>
<p>But while the politicians are the ones huffing and puffing to the finish line, voters may already feel exhausted by the debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3370/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It all started in February when Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced her government would seek to introduce a carbon tax. This signalled the start of a policy debate marathon that still shows no sign…Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/20842011-06-30T23:56:29Z2011-06-30T23:56:29ZFair work? It’s all about political spin in industrial relations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2012/original/gillard_workers.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Labor government has shied away from making substantial changes in industrial relations law.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Patrick Hamilton</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Peter Reith’s <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/why-is-abbott-so-spooked-by-the-workchoices-bogyman-20110627-1gne2.html">spectacular re-emergence</a> into Australian politics has enlivened the so-called “IR” debate. </p>
<p>His intervention has called forth a flood of commentary, from <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/libs-urge-tony-abbott-to-light-ir-fires/story-fn59niix-1226083773126">Tony Abbott</a> (who now supports “practical not ideological” reform) to the <a href="http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/7201/The_Fair_Work_Act_Two-years_On.pdf">ACTU</a>.</p>
<h2>Old-style rhetoric </h2>
<p>The political spin on all sides is, of course, familiar. It’s about the burden on business of too much regulation, “go away money” inherent in the unfair dismissal regime, the bogeyman of Big Unions stifling the individual choices of workers, the out of touch tribunal captured by labour interests, the countervailing arguments about “fairness”, the “high road” to improved productivity, the “independent umpire” and (in very soft tones) the dictates of international legal norms to do with collective labour relations. </p>
<p>These are the terms of regulatory debates since the 1980s, if not earlier. Even the<a href="http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/index.php"> HR Nichols Society</a> is copying its pamphlets and gearing up for the fight.</p>
<p>But what is really going on? How did Australian labour law change with the introduction of the <a href="http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=legislationfwact">Fair Work Act</a>? And what is the current and likely future impact of those changes? </p>
<h2>Tough measures still in place</h2>
<p>How the law changed, and the question of what those changes mean for the real world, are two very different issues. </p>
<p>Legal academics tend, in the first instance at least, to focus on the nature of the legal change. </p>
<p>In this regard, the <a href="http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=legislationfwact">Fair Work Act</a> continues many of the Coalition’s policies. </p>
<p>It maintains aspects of the tough anti-union measures introduced in Coalition legislation over the years – limits on multi-employer bargaining, on the right to strike, what can be bargained over in enterprise agreements, on union officials rights to enter workplaces and limits on the capacity of <a href="http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm">Fair Work Australia</a> to settle intractable industrial disputes by mandatory arbitration. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.federationpress.com.au/pdf/WorkChoicesOverviewDec06.pdf">Work Choices</a> model of a safety net of legislated minimum standards has been retained, as is much of the detail of the actual standards. </p>
<p>Individualised working conditions can be negotiated outside award/agreement terms under the Fair Work Act, subject to some protections. </p>
<h2>What’s new?</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2011/original/Fair_Work_demo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2011/original/Fair_Work_demo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2011/original/Fair_Work_demo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2011/original/Fair_Work_demo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2011/original/Fair_Work_demo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2011/original/Fair_Work_demo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/2011/original/Fair_Work_demo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People took to the streets to protest about the changes to the WorkChoices scheme. AAP/Jeremy Piper.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are key differences. The Fair Work Act has reinstituted a central role for awards at industry or occupational level. </p>
<p>And the bargaining system has been refocused around the right of workers to be represented. No longer is the employer able to completely refuse to bargain with an organisation or person who speaks for a majority of the workers. </p>
<p>Bargaining is governed by a new statutory principle requiring that the parties act in good faith. And as the Liberal Party <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/06/01/Governments-Dubious-checklist-exposes-small-business-to-unfair-dismissal-claims.aspx">has highlighted</a>, the Fair Work Act has reinstituted the unfair dismissal jurisdiction largely gutted under Work Choices.</p>
<p>However, for every step in implementing its mandate to “rip up” Work Choices, the Government has hesitated and, in cases, quietly placed its foot back down on the ground. </p>
<h2>Bargaining rights</h2>
<p>Unlike New Zealand law, which requires parties to bargain in good faith and reach agreement (unless there’s a good reason for not doing so), the Fair Work Act places no equivalent obligation on employers. </p>
<p>In practice, the bargaining provisions of the Act appear to permit an employer to put a proposed agreement directly to their workforce for a binding vote, whether or not the workers’ representative agrees. </p>
<p>It is possible, then, that the Fair Work Act has created a system of collective agreement rather than one of collective bargaining. </p>
<h2>Clear your desk. Or let’s talk</h2>
<p>The unfair dismissal jurisdiction receives much press for the colourful decisions about hairdressers on Facebook and drunk employees at Christmas parties, but the reality is that the vast majority of cases are dealt with before going to be formally determined by Fair Work Australia. </p>
<p>Labor introduced the use of telephone conciliation, and many cases are dispensed with over the phone, on the papers.</p>
<p>This Government’s hesitation is clear in relation to the legislated standards. One example will suffice. The Fair Work Act introduces a statutory right to request a variation to working time for family purposes, which the employer may refuse on “reasonable business grounds”. </p>
<p>Unlike all the other <a href="http://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment/national-employment-standards/pages/default.aspx">National Employment Standards</a>, an employee whose request is refused on unreasonable grounds cannot enforce their “right” by taking action in any court or before Fair Work Australia. </p>
<p>And in an early sign of the Government’s conservative social agenda, the “right to request” is limited to the care of pre-school children (or older children with a disability). An opportunity to humanise work for those caring for elders, spouses and others in non-traditional caring relationships was missed. </p>
<h2>Where the power lies</h2>
<p>In sum, there is much in the Fair Work Act which plays to the employer agenda now being re-expressed. Indeed, without the creation of very radical laws, in some areas it is difficult to see how the Coalition could outflank what the Government has done in this field. This is the political dilemma now faced by the Coalition. </p>
<p>The second question raised – on the impact of the Fair Work Act – cannot be answered in any definitive way.</p>
<p>Understanding the relationship between legal rules and the real world at micro- and macro-economic levels is a largely unexplored science. </p>
<p>For this reason, the Australian discourse about productivity and deregulation rarely moves beyond shadow boxing around stock shibboleths – “go away money”, kids working after school in hardware stores. </p>
<p>Perhaps future discussions and policies will be informed by strong empirical data and transparent public debate, but it looks like the spin cycle is starting all over again.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2084/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jill Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Peter Reith’s spectacular re-emergence into Australian politics has enlivened the so-called “IR” debate. His intervention has called forth a flood of commentary, from Tony Abbott (who now supports “practical…Jill Murray, Reader and Associate Professor, Law School, Faculty of Law and Management, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.