‘Deregulation’ of Labour Relations in Australia: toward command and control

By John Howe

The misnomer 'labour market deregulation' continues to dominate political debates over the future of labour law in Australia.

The phrase is widely used to describe the ideal of removing laws which protect labour rights and entitlements, in order to allow business more 'flexibility' in labour relations. This ideal is based on two related assumptions. First, that the Australian federal labour relations system has historically been a highly state-interventionist, centralised, and juridified model of business regulation based on a 'paternalistic' objective of protecting workers and their trade unions from the operation of market forces. Second, that Australian business will be more productive and able to compete more effectively in the global marketplace once deregulation allows labour relations to become more decentralised and decollectivised.

In reality, there is no such thing as 'deregulation' of labour markets to the extent that this suggests the ultimate removal of all labour market regulation. Labour markets are both constituted and regulated by the state and private actors on the basis of a number of different and contested policy priorities. The rhetoric of labour market deregulation often masks extensive legal re-regulation and juridification of social and economic systems or spheres to suit prevailing political objectives. This rhetoric is based on a rather narrow definition of 'regulation' and its purposes when it comes to the exchange of labour in the economy. The inaccuracy of the term is highlighted by the inconsistency between the Howard Coalition Government's labour market deregulation rhetoric, and its extensive use of prescriptive law to 're-regulate' labour relations to, among other things, reduce the power of the AIRC and trade unions. The Howard Coalition Government's determination to have the Parliament pass a radical piece of legislation, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill 2003 (the BCII Bill), provides a further example of this inconsistency between rhetoric and reality.