Tony Abbott must confront Work Choices bogyman

TONY Abbott's failure to spell out an alternative industrial relations policy to that of the Fair Work Act is manifestly unacceptable for a right-of-centre political leader. It speaks to the lack of ideas and strategy that are on display at the moment within the upper echelons of the conservatives.

While I disagree with the Labor Party's approach to IR policies, I can at least respect their ideological commitment to the cause. The same goes for union leaders. A Liberal Party without an alternative IR policy, by contrast, is a party without an ideological soul.

Given the large swathe of backbenchers who want the party to be more robust on this topic, it speaks to Abbott's small-target unwillingness to be defined by what he stands for. He instead seeks only to be defined by what he opposes.

The irony, of course, is that in between so many Labor policies that Abbott already opposes he cannot find it within himself to oppose the Fair Work Act. In fact, he falls over himself to rule out amending it. The latest example included ruling out individual contracts: a common enough policy embraced in Western democracies the world over.

Liberals are being guided by a short-term tactical approach, opposing policies they believe are unpopular or that create important pockets of unpopularity, such as carbon pricing, the mining tax and pokies reform.

Opposing the Fair Work Act -- and spelling out an alternative -- is good policy positioning, to be sure. But it's not good short-term tactical politicking. Without a change, businesses will be forced to labour under the current laws irrespective of who wins the next election.

Business leaders should remember this as they consider putting their hands in their pockets when Liberal Party fundraisers come knocking. It is not enough to give business leaders a grubby little nudge and a wink. They deserve policy commitments in the public domain. We all understood the Coalition's need to take a cautious approach to IR at the last election. It was the first time they had faced the people since being defeated at the ballot box in 2007, largely due to the dreaded Work Choices bogyman.

But, with the operation of the Fair Work Act now under the microscope courtesy of the Qantas standoff, it is time for a party with a rich history of supporting IR reform to come out of its shell and give business an alternative to Labor's old-fashioned laws.

If Liberals won't do it now when they are facing one of the most unpopular Prime Minister's in history, when will courage on the IR front ever return to the Coalition ranks?

There has been plenty of commentary suggesting the current act worked well during the Qantas standoff because its provisions helped resolve the situation by forcing 21 days of negotiation between the parties, followed by arbitration. That, however, misses the point.

Where the Qantas dispute highlighted the failures of the act were in the lead up to chief executive Alan Joyce's decision to ground his fleet. The big complaint by Qantas management was the nature of union demands didn't relate to pay disputes; they didn't even relate to disagreements over conditions of employment. They related to unions trying to dictate to management about business decisions such as where to locate maintenance operations, for example.

Changes to Australia's IR system -- legislated by Julia Gillard when she was the relevant minister -- did not simply involve winding back Work Choices. It included winding back a series of reforms John Howard's government legislated in its first term between 1996-98. It also involved winding back provisions Paul Keating put in place shortly after he became prime minister in 1991. It represents a retreat to the Australian Settlement Paul Kelly wrote about in The End of Certainty.

Given the extent of the windback by Labor during this term, Abbott should not be afraid to rule out Work Choices at the same time as pledging to reintroduce previously bipartisan elements of IR reform.

If mounting such a case is tough, well, guess what: political leadership often is. Political cowardice, on the other hand, comes cheap.