This discussion paper by a group of scholars across the fields of health, economics and labour relations argues that COVID-19 is an unprecedented humanitarian crisis from which there can be no return to the ‘old normal’. The pandemic’s disastrous worldwide health impacts have been exacerbated by, and have compounded, the unsustainability of economic globalisation based on the neoliberal dismantling of state capabilities in favour of markets. Flow-on economic impacts have simultaneously created major supply and demand disruptions, and highlighted the growing within-country inequalities and precarity generated by neoliberal regimes of labour market regulation. Taking an Australian and international perspective, we examine these economic and labour market impacts, paying particular attention to differential impacts on First Nations people, developing countries, women, immigrants and young people. Evaluating policy responses in a political climate of national and international leadership very different from those in which major twentieth century crises were addressed, we argue the need for a national and international conversation to develop a new pathway out of crisis. JEL Codes: E18, HO, I1, J64, J88

No abstract

Abstract"Frontline employees are becoming scapegoats for late trains, delayed flights, bewildered people, long queues and cuts to services. Staff have been punched, kicked, bitten and spat on by people who are overwrought, strung out on alcohol or drugs, mentally unstable or just plain angry at the world" (Robinson 2004

Traditionally Australian wage determination has involved specialiscd state agencies providing the setting in which employers, unions and workers settle agreements, written and unwritten, individual and collective. Until recent times the formal elements of the system have been built around the equal standing of unions and employer representatives in setting basic standards under the authority of industrial tribunals. As a matter of practice, however, employers at workplace and enterprise level have, in many industries, enjoyed considerable autonomy in the setting of wages and conditions above minimum standards.' Developments in 1996 confirmed the steady reduction of union influence in the formal process of wage determination and a consequent increase in the relative power enjoyed by employers in setting pay. The changing role of industrial tribunals in these trends was also clarified during the year. At both state and federal level they played an active role in facilitating the development of new, non-union and, in some cases, individual contracts of employment.As the year unfolded a number of key events occurred at national, state and industry levels and important new information on how wages are set within the firm was released. At the national level the last days of the Accord coincided with the tacit acceptance of individual, staff-based systems of employment within the award system. Ironically, the early days of the Liberal-National Coalition coincided with the commencement of a living wage case conducted to maintain the relevance the award rates of pay for the late 1990s. Both developments signified the high level of policy continuity between the outgoing Labor and incoming Liberal-National Coalition governments. The consolidation of employer influence in the system of wage determination received further support in the reforms promoted by most state governments, two of which (Victoria and Queensland) moved to directly align their systems with that prevailing federally. Newly released data on enterprise and workplace level wage determination revealed growing fragmentation in the wages system, with growing numbers of workers being excluded from coflective agreements at workplace level, and a large proportion either achieving wage increases outside of collective bargaining or working longer hours for no increase in pay at all. Developments at industry level revealed that the balance between individual and collective bargaining varied dramatically from industry to industry. They also revealed that the nature and outcomes of collective 1. An excellent account of employer autonomy is provided in Chris Wright (1996), The

Three decades of government budget cuts have placed significant financial pressure on Australia's cultural institutions. Institutions are increasingly trying to attract non‐government funding to fulfil their legislative mandates to collect, maintain, and exhibit Australian and international art, to educate and inform the public, and preserve Australia's political, social, and cultural history. Evidence suggests that, despite these efforts, sources of funding have not changed significantly. Budget cuts are impacting a range of areas including acquisitions, preservation, digitisation, as well as limiting access to researchers and the public. This paper concludes that a public review of the roles played by cultural institutions is required, including consideration of the level of public funding provided. To do otherwise is to ignore the importance of Australia's cultural heritage.