If the debate over the Howard Government's work regulation changes were conducted on purely economic grounds, the Government would probably win the day. Every indicator is that lighter regulation will assist to further reduce unemployment. This fact alone should give moral force to the Government's proposals.
But instead of being focused on economics, the debate is heavily skewed to cultural issues. On culture the Government is struggling. Why is this so? Contrary to much popular myth, the Howard Government is not traditionally conservative. Its changes to work regulation prove that within Australian culture the Government is quite radical.
Since the 1950s Australian conservatism has shifted heavily. Now the conservative institutions are largely controlled by the ageing children of the post-war baby boom. What principally defines this conservatism is a longing for the centralised power of the state to protect us from everything and anything. At the core of this conservatism sits the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
In reducing the power of the commission to control working lives, the Government is assaulting Australian conservatism. And the diverse line-up of bedfellows aghast at the assault demonstrates just how comparatively radical for Australia the Government's proposals are.
The Government faces a phalanx of vocal opposition from churches, unions, environmental groups, welfare bodies, opposing political parties and significant elements within its state and federal parties. Behind the scenes several business associations oppose the changes, as do many business leaders.
The cultural issues are clear and simple. Allegedly the centralised industrial relations system has preserved the Australian way of family life. By doubling award pay rates on Sundays, the Christian Sabbath has been protected. Enforcing time and a half on Saturdays has induced fathers to attend Saturday morning footy matches with their sons. Locking in high pay rates for shiftwork has kept parents at home with their children in the evenings. Even the shearing award safeguards dietary standards by prescribing that meat and vegetables must be served.
These are just some examples of how the industrial system has protected our culture, so the reasoning goes. But more than anything, the system is driven by a key conservative belief that business can't be trusted to treat ordinary Australians fairly. The AIRC is central to the conservative idea of how to protect Australians from unfair bosses. Many in the business community and particularly some business associations agree.
The consequence has been that over generations Australia has institutionalised an industrial, business, political and cultural settlement. The settlement holds that a diverse range of business and community leaders can arrange business affairs and through the AIRC achieve social fairness. The pay-off for some businesses is that the system secures favoured business deals for inside players and protection for those players from potential competitors.
The proposed significant downgrading of the AIRC and awards by the Government appears to tear this understanding apart. Most important, it threatens the inside position of the institutions and individuals who have heavy influence over the settlement process. This is radical for Australia and explains why the Government faces well-organised opposition.
But the bigger issue is not whether the proposals unsettle this establishment conservatism. The more interesting question is whether the Government's timing and the substance of the changes resonate with the new middle ground that has emerged in Australia. No one disputes that Australian families and life are radically different from those of the '50s. Gays proudly proclaim their lifestyle as one model of family life. Single parents are families, no different from mums and dads with kids. Work patterns vary extensively from the 9am to 5pm standard. Many people want to work on weekends and take their recreation and family time midweek. Diversity has become everything.
And unions, churches and the AIRC supporters are not blind. The changed family and cultural environment is as much a part of their lives as it is of everyone else. They know system change is inevitable. There is one big difference, however.
Supporters of the present system want to be the controllers of change through the AIRC and work agreements. They believe emphatically that individuals do not have the capacity, intellect, knowledge and power to control work change. Their message is: Be fearful of individual capacity.
In this respect the Howard Government's proposals are truly radical because the stark alternative offered is a belief that individuals do and can have the capacity to control their work futures.
This individualism assaults the Australian conservative settlement. We have a cultural battle, between a belief in the self and a cultural fear of the self.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment