The Government Is Really Hating On Australian Unions

Australia’s unions have survived a lot: the Eureka rebellion, the waterfront dispute, John Howard’s WorkChoices, and maybe even Craig Thomson. Whether they’ll survive the Abbott administration is another story. On Monday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced an unprecedented royal commission inquiry into union corruption. The move follows an investigation by Fairfax and the ABC in January that linked Australia’s powerful building unions with dodgy companies, bikies, and other shady characters straight from a repeat of Underbelly.

This announcement is not a shock. Abbott’s party has been eyeing off unions since forever and previous Coalition governments have initiated similar inquiries, such as the Cole Royal Commission in 2001. Worker’s rights in general continue to be political football between Australia’s two main political parties. The Coalition says unions are a barrier for productive business but the ALP (which was born out of the worker’s movement) thinks they’re pretty awesome.

It is therefore unsurprising that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says the corruption inquiry is unnecessary, or that union leader Ged Kearney says it's a "political witch hunt". These comments are obviously part of a larger political game but they’re also not entirely unreasonable if you look at broader incidents. Since January, the Abbott government has taken several high-profile swipes at Australian unions.

One example involves SPC Ardmona: a locally processed food company that you’ll probably remember from your childhood lunchbox. Apple puree and tinned peaches aren’t as popular with the young kids these days, and SPC wants $25 million in government assistance. The Abbott government is against this sort of corporate bailout, which is kind of fair when you consider that SPC is owned by a highly profitable company called Coca-Cola Amatil.

Where the government hits a snag was in its reasoning for denying an SPC bailout. Abbott singled out SPC’s “generous” workplace agreement, and essentially said that SPC can’t bitch about money problems because it’s allowed unions to demand too many perks for its Victorian factory workers. This accusation led to an awkward lose-lose moment for SPC’s Managing Director Peter Kelly: he had to deny that his company was too nice to its employees.

SPC’s Kelly wasn’t the only one upset by the Coalition’s finger-pointing. Some of its own party members were also a bit offended. Backbencher Sharman Stone, who represents the SPC factory’s electorat, accused Abbott (i.e. her boss) and others of "lying" about the factory's powerful unions and worker’s perks. This captivating outburst was supported by SPC's underwhelming pay packets: $45,000 a year for a factory worker.

And then came Toyota. Last Monday was a pretty huge news day, what with the royal commission announcement, Schapelle Corby's tea-towel, and Toyota’s decision to stop manufacturing cars in Australia. This last news story was predictable yet still devastating for the local car industry, and 2,500 Victorian workers are now set to lose their jobs by 2017. The government’s sensitive response? Don’t even ask. (Clue: it involves those sneaky unions.)

On Wednesday, Toyota flatly denied that unreasonable unions and workplace arrangements played a starring role in its Australian factory closure. This story is still developing, but in a way the truth about Toyota has now ceased to matter. Instead, there’s a much bigger question to ponder: why is the Abbott government so obviously eager to poke shit at unions?

Some say the shit poking is part of a broader political agenda. Last week, Waleed Aly said as much in The Age. He said the Abbott government’s SPC sledging was its way of establishing a conversation around industrial relations conditions and union power without actually spelling it out. This is presumably because reforming industrial relations law didn’t work out so flash for the last Coalition, which fleetingly implemented the widely mocked WorkChoices.

“The solution seems to be to make [industrial relations] an issue independent of government; to illustrate slowly over time that the system is broken so that reform becomes possible,” says Aly. It’s not crystal clear what the reform would be, but the political rhetoric makes it pretty clear what’s on the chopping block: enterprise bargaining agreements and other union-ish stuff that allegedly cuts into the profits and market competitiveness of small and big business.

Which brings us back to that royal commission. In terms of spelling things out, the government’s inquiry announcement was akin to reading an entire novella out loud. Their inquiry’s scope is huge and aims to look deep into the “darkest” corners of Australia’s biggest unions: transport, construction, tradies, and the AWU. The Health Services Union is also notably included (that’s the one that Craig Thomson once led and allegedly misused money from to pay for hookers, among other things).

The inquiry’s wide scope is troubling some workplace policy experts. Last week, The University of Sydney’s Professor John Buchanan reiterated Aly's sentiments about the government's broader anti-union game plan. He told the ABC that it’s concerning that unions are being targeted above employers, who may also engage in dodgy behaviour like accepting bribes. “I think that's important for people to appreciate,” he said.

VICE put this last argument to Greg James QC. James has a few levels of insight on this one: he’s currently representing ex-union boss Thomson in court and led a royal commission inquiry in 2005. James says it’s unlikely that dodgy employers will be overlooked by the latest inquiry into corrupt union business dealings. "It takes two to tango. And if you're inquiring into the dance, then it's mostly likely you will need to examine both partners,” he says.

Gerard de Valence, a senior lecturer from The University of Technology, Sydney, made similar comments to VICE. He said the union inquiry “might be an overkill” but it still may turn up all sorts of company and corporate misdemeanours. “Royal commissions have a habit of turning up the unexpected,” he said. One example of this is the current inquiry into sexual abuse in the Church. “Nobody expected that would end up with the Salvation Army on the stand,” he says.

Follow Emilia on Twitter: @EmiliaKate