Hancock Report
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hancock Report was a report on the Australian Industrial Relations system by the Federal Government. The report argued for a centralised industrial relations system centred around awards, and argued against de-centralisation and enterprise bargaining [1]. The report's findings were handed down in 1985, and started a long debate over industrial relations in Australia [2].
[edit] Background
In 1983 the Government commissioned Professor Keith Hancock to examine the operation of the then-existing industrial relations system and to make recommendations as to its future direction [3]. The consequent 'Report of the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems' was presented to the Government in 1985 [4]. The report provided a comprehensive assessment of Australian industrial relations and made a large number of recommendations regarding changes to the system [5].
[edit] Recommendations
The Hancock Report's general conclusions about Australia's system of conciliation and arbitration were that:
- the abandonment of the existing conciliation and arbitration system would be fraught with great difficulties predominantly arising from the attitudes and practices of the parties, public opinion and the complexities of Federal /state relations and any attempt to do so would be strenuously resisted;
- the conciliation and arbitration system is, to a significant degree, adaptable and can accommodate different practices and policies if the parties so desire;
- attempts to move from a collective system would be difficult and undesirable;
- it affords a mechanisms of wage policy which is a useful instrument for pursuing macroeconomic objectives, such as curbing inflation and reducing or avoiding unemployment;
- the wage fixing system was helpful in that it affords a mechanism for a centralised wages policy, which assists in curbing inflation and contributes to a reduction and avoidance of unemployment;
public interest in wages policy requires that tribunal have regard to economic consequences of awards;
- definite and decisive advantages in an alternative system would have to be demonstrated to justify moving from a conciliation and arbitration system (which, in the Hancock Committee's view, had not been done);
- there was little or no evidence that the award system with effects on wage relativities had had damaging micro-economic consequences, including the promotion of an inflexible job market;
arguments about deregulation of the labour market did not allow for imperfections and concentrations of power in the labour market; and
- advantages claimed for systems devoid of conciliation and arbitration were speculative (and the Hancock Committee had no confidence that they would eventuate).
In relation to registered organisations and the requirements for registration, the Hancock Committee sought a balance between the interest of employees and employers in being able to have bona fide associations registered and the need for representation of employees and employers to be on an orderly and stable basis. The Hancock Committee therefore recommended a wider statutory test, but incorporating the concept 'conveniently belong'. This is discussed further in Chapter 7 (Paragraph 7.8) [6].
[edit] Implementation
Many of the Hancock Committee's recommendations, including some of the more controversial ones such as the establishment of a Labour Court and new enforcement provisions, were adopted by the Industrial Relations Bill 1987 which was introduced into Parliament in May 1987 [7]. However, with the subsequent dissolution of Parliament, this Bill lapsed and a revised Bill (the Industrial Relations Bill 1988) was introduced after the Government was returned. The revised Bill became the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and did not differ much in substance from the previous Act [8].
The Hancock Report's findings also led to the formation of the H.R. Nicholls Society, an industrial relations think tank strongly in favour of deregulation and decentralisation.
