Is tripartite consultation still the way to go?

Australia’s recently announced review into model OHS laws is firmly bound by the tripartite consultative structure formalised by Lord Robens in the early 1970s and comprising government, unions and employers. This is a sensible structure as it involves all of the major influences in Australian workplaces. But just how relevant is it now, thirty years later?

Earlier in April 2008, new data on union membership was released that shows that union membership in August 2007 was below 19%. The ACTU president Sharan Burrows has been putting on a brave face for these figures but the bounce that the trade unions expected from the fear created by Prime Minister John Howard’s WorkChoices legislation did not happen. The slide in membership has continued.

The unions are becoming more dominated by public service union members and the construction industry than ever before but it is not membership figures that is the crux of the question. Should an organisation that only represents 19% of employees control one of the exclusive seats that advise government on OHS issues?

Clearly, any organisation that controls this, historically small, industrial workforce should be heard but why are others excluded?

The April summit organised by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, shows that there are consultative mechanisms available in the 21st century that provide a broader range of input than do the traditional structures and public service. And Rudd’s 2020 summit was a physical meeting of selected guests. What could have been achieved if the 2020 recommendations, and ideas big and small, had been available online for further suggestions and refinement? The technology is here and Australia is experiencing a resurgent political will.

But let’s start with a smaller test target. How about the already-announced National OHS Review? Can this review provide an easy format for making submissions? Can its public hearings also be broadcast on the internet? Could it use a blog structure to allow ideas and comments to develop and evolve from a number of sources from around Australia and elsewhere?

In short, couldn’t the government make it easy for the broadest range of Australians to have direct input into the development of laws that affect them all?