Red Rag

The biggest news of the campaign in the last couple of days has been the “Faustian pact” between the Australian Nursing Federation’s Mark Olson and the Liberal Party. Olson is urging nurses to vote for the Coalition, and is running nurses in certain seats in order to funnel preferences to the Liberals. This is obviously a spanner in Labor’s works, but I’m not convinced it’s a particularly damaging one.

WA’s public hospital nurses have been negotiating their latest EBA for almost a year, with very little progress having been made. Olson is a bigger show-pony than Joe McDonald, and his campaign has been less about the interests of nurses and more about planting his face on the news each night. The fact that he wants to stand nurses as candidates in the election (he even wanted to register a political party, but missed the deadline) suggests that this has been his game-plan all along — refuse to give any ground in negotiations until election time, then buy a few more minutes on the evening news by selling out to the Liberals.

In his December 2004 decision, AIRC Deputy President McCarthy made it quite clear that Mark Olson did not negotiate in good faith, and that the election campaign was his real goal. I will quote from the decision extensively to give you its flavour, and highlight the key points:

62.    It would be unrealistic for the ANF to expect that conditions common to all employees of government would be altered and made more generous for nurses. … Is it one thing to make claims which in effect give notice of future intentions, but it is quite another to not accept what I consider to be reasonable answers to claims that fall within this category that Government will deal with such matters on a whole of government approach at the appropriate time. To the extent that the claims of the ANF fail to recognise the need for a whole of government approach in respect of certain issues, this is an indication of a lack of genuinely trying to reach agreement.

[...]

65.    The ANF, in the conciliation in which I was involved, did not appear to consider the total cost of its claims as unreasonable. I consider the apparent lack of appreciation of the need for the Government to contain its costs within reasonable bounds to be another indication of not genuinely trying to reach agreement. The Government, having had the claims costed, having itemised each claim and explained the basis for its costing, and then having made a firm offer, I think could reasonably have expected the ANF to reduce the number of its claims or at least shown some regard for the needs of Government given the total cost of that offer if accepted and implemented. This failure in my view is another indication of a lack of genuinely trying to reach agreement.

[...]

70.    The Minister is obviously keen to conclude an agreement with the ANF.

[...]

90.    Taking all of the above matters into consideration I consider that the ANF and in particular its Secretary did not genuinely try to reach agreement prior to the taking of industrial action. I make this conclusion with respect to all of the bargaining periods initiated by the ANF.

But here’s the key passage:

72.    Rather the ANF officials have in my view been trying to delay reaching an agreement. The obvious and only real conclusion in this regard I can make is that the ANF wished to take advantage of the fact that there was a federal election and it wanted to apply pressure on the Government by pursuing its agenda politically. Since that election the ANF now appears to want to pursue its agenda politically during the upcoming state election. Whilst the ANF has every right to take that action, if the ANF is delaying reaching an agreement primarily for that purpose it is indicative that it did not genuinely try to reach agreement prior to the taking of industrial action.

While I don’t support Jim McGinty’s decision to push for a non-union agreement, I can understand his frustration. This wasn’t just ambit claim stuff — Olson was actively sabotaging the prospect of a deal, and that’s not good for his members or the public. The Government put the AIRC’s recommendations, which were higher than its previous offer, to a vote of all nurses, which was lost. In my opinion, McGinty should have publicised the AIRC decision and attended a meeting with Olson in person, telling him this was his last chance to make a reasonable offer. This would have neutralised one of Olson’s propaganda points — that the Minister had refused to attend a meeting — and put the onus back on the ANF secretary.

But what’s done is done, and the question now is how it will affect the outcome of the elections. Some, like newly-elected secretary of UnionsWA Dave Robinson, have compared the deal to the federal campaign’s Tasmanian CFMEU debacle. “I think it’s a bit akin to the forestry workers in Tasmania,” he said. “If registered nurses don’t really scrutinise this arrangement and think hard about the past, it has the potential to have some impact.” That’s certainly what the Liberals and Olson are banking on (I’d like to know whether they were meeting last year while Olson refused to negotiate with the Government), but I don’t think it’s the same thing at all.

First, the CFMEU’s decision to back Howard was announced in the final week of the campaign. It flat-footed Labor and gave us a limited time to respond by explaining the true state of the parties’ policies. This deal was announced in the first week of an extra-long campaign, so Labor effectively has an entire campaign to put its side of the story.

Second, almost nobody supports the deal. UnionsWA says nurses would be foolish to trust the Liberal Government. Various unions that represent other health workers have come out strongly against the deal. The LHMU, which represents enrolled (as opposed to registered) nurses, says Olson only has a commitment to negotiate, which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry opposes wage deals signed in the heat of an election campaign, citing the prospect of a “bidding war” and the effect it would have on the budget bottom line. Given that the estimated cost of the ANF’s proposal is $250 million, and the Liberals have promised to throw another $50 million into the pot, this criticism has the potential to gain ground. And Colin Barnett’s response to the inevitable question — “Where is the money coming from?” — hasn’t been reassuring:

It will come from the finances of the State Government and the finance of the Budget grows every year, and it was within the provisions of that health capacity to do that.

I’m sure he meant to say… something. I think “the finance of the Budget grows every year” is another way of saying “we won’t rule out tax hikes.”

Third, nurses might start to wonder exactly what the deal involves. They’ve turned down a 14.7% offer from the Government, in favour of a 14% offer from the Opposition. The Liberal Party media release says, “The agreement with the ANF commits to negotiations to reach an outcome on issues.” That’s a far cry from the impression conveyed by Mark Olson, who suggested on the evening news that this was a firm, final and binding agreement. Nurses will do well to ask what it actually means.

And they might ask what the promised $50 million in health spending will actually buy them when Barnett has previously promised to make $400 million in cuts to the health budget. You can be that it won’t be at the expense of doctors or specialists — it will be made by destroying nurses’ working conditions.

This will be contrasted with Labor’s health promises, which have yet to be made. As Geoff Gallop pointed out, “In the course of the campaign we will be outlining initiatives that will help nurses and all health workers in terms of their conditions.” Firm commitments to improved conditions, alongside a continued commitment to the AIRC’s 14.7% recommendation, would trump the Liberals’ lower pay offer and vague promise to negotiate.

There are obviously risks. The Liberals and the ANF will campaign very hard on this issue and will buy expensive print, radio and television ad spots. Labor’s policies might not be as clear as they should be, or they might be poorly sold.

But it’s clear this is no Tasmanian forest policy. If the Liberals were smart, they would have allowed the nurses to pursue the Government through the media for a few more weeks, before putting their offer on the table and looking like saviours. Instead, they’ve given Labor a whole month to respond, with support from both unions and the peak employer body. They’ve also played into Labor’s hands by allowing Colin Barnett being seen to throw around cash when faced with a problem.

No, I think this will work out well for Labor — and best of all, Mark Olson will get his comeuppance.

Update: In this post I said the Liberals offered a flat 14% increase. In fact, they offered the 14.7% recommended by the AIRC. However, Labor had already offered 15%, so it is still a backwards step — and it’s still nothing more than an agreement to negotiate.