Neha Patil (Editor)

Hancock Report

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit

The Hancock Report was a report on the Australian system of industrial relations system by the central government. The report argued for a centralised industrial relations system centred on award and argued against decentralisation and enterprise bargaining [1]. The report's findings were handed down in 1985 and started a long debate over industrial relations in Australia[2].

Contents

Background

In 1983, the government commissioned Professor Keith Hancock to examine the operation of the industrial relations system and to make recommendations as to its future direction [3]. The 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 many recommendations regarding changes to the system[5].

Recommendations

The Hancock Report's made general conclusions about Australia's system of conciliation and arbitration:

  • The abandonment of the existing conciliation and arbitration system would be fraught great difficulties arising predominantly arising from the attitudes and practices of the parties, public opinion and the complexities of intergovernmental relations, and any attempt to do so would be strenuously resisted.
  • The conciliation and arbitration system was, to a significant degree, adaptable and could accommodate different practices and policies if the parties desired.
  • Attempts to move from a collective system would be difficult and undesirable.
  • Mechanisms of a wage policy are useful for pursuing macroeconomic objectives, such as curbing inflation and reducing or avoiding unemployment;
  • The wage-fixing system was helpful in that it afforded a mechanism for a centralised wages policy to assist in curbing inflation and to contribute to reducing and avoiding of unemployment.
  • Public interest in wages policy requires the tribunal to 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, and in the committee's view, that had not been done).
  • There was little or no evidence that the award system, with effects on wage relativities, had damaging microeconomic 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.
  • Advantages claimed for systems devoid of conciliation and arbitration were speculative, and the committee had no confidence that they would occur.

    • In relation to registered organisations and the requirements for registration, the committee sought a balance between the interest of employees and employers in being able to have bona fide associations that were registered and the need for representation of employees and employers to be on an orderly and stable basis. The committee therefore recommended a wider statutory test[6].

    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 was almost the same as 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.

    References

    Hancock Report Wikipedia
    (Text) CC BY-SA