Psst, maybe no one will notice we don’t really believe it
Ah, what wouldn't this government do to improve its electoral chances? They tried convincing us that being stripped of industrial rights was good for us. Now they are trying something new.
Earlier today Joe Hockey told the press that the government "got it wrong" when it underestimated what would happen when it created "a system that may lead to people trading away penality rates without fair compensation."
That's interesting - the government underestimated what would happen when you put all the power in the hands of employers, many of whom see their workers as dispensible commodities?
The Howard government knew exactly what would happen under WorkChoices. The policy was not an accidental re-formulation of Australia's industrial relations system - it was a very deliberate ideological choice, the pinnacle of Howard government's IR policy. The core aspect of Work Choices was the abolition of the no-disadvantage test, an emasculated version of which is supposedly incorporated in the "fairness test" that is now being introduced in an attempt to mislead the electorate into thinking that they are protected. So determined was the government to achieve its IR aims that it bided its time until it gained control of the Senate and could push through its policies unopposed.
So if Hockey is saying that the government "got it wrong" on WorkChoices, is he not admitting that the government's core ideological position is flawed, and was flawed from the beginning? That would be a sure sign of a government that has to go.
But the Howard government doesn't actually believe the got it wrong on Work Choices. How do we know? Well, lets take a look at what Howard said about Work Choices less than two months ago, as he was wishing his legislation a "happy birthday":
"WorkChoices has been beneficial. We've had more than 250,000 more jobs created, wages have continued to rise strongly, strikes are at their lowest level since 1913, so the score card is very, very strong."
Does that mean that the government does not think the legislation needs to be amended to include a "fairness" component? Well, just to avoid doubt, Mr Howard went on:
"If we roll back WorkChoices, which is what Labor will do if it wins at the end of this year, it will be the first time in a generation that a major economic reform in this country has been reversed and that will send a terrible signal to the business community in this country, to investors abroad. We'll be saying to the world, this country has lost the stomach for economic reform."
That's right, employees losing key entitlements is not a good enough reason for the Howard government to "roll back" its "major economic reforms". The prospect of losing the next election on the other hand seems like an adequate excuse.
Two months is an awfully short time for an about-face on your core policy, but those poll numbers are much more compelling than evidence of workplace exploitation.
So what is worse - a government hypocritically pretending to care about the unfair effects of its legislation in an attempt to scrape a few more votes or a government that has been proven wrong in its centrepiece policy after it has consistently and vociferously renounced all criticisms of that policy?
RSS
