Senate right to slow IR passage

To be taken seriously in future, members of the Senate must insist they be given a proper amount of time to assess fully the federal government’s proposed changes to the nation’s industrial relations laws. Changes should include splitting the omnibus bill into parts to ensure that unfavourable reforms are not forced through under cover of changes that have wide support.

Given the high value placed on process and proper evaluation by independent candidates and the Labor team in opposition during the federal election, it is impossible now to justify the short time that significant reforms have been given. It is almost parody to consider that Senate hearings into the reforms were started before the closing time for submissions to the committee hearing them. The fact there will be only days for consideration of such complex changes has raised the ire of senators across the spectrum of political views and undermines any claims by Labor of wanting to govern in a more collegiate way.

Labor’s industrial relations bill passed the House of Representatives on Thursday by 80 votes to 56. Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke says he expects further debate in the Senate, partially over the definition of a small business. The number of employees needed to trigger changes including multi-employer bargaining rules is significant. But there are many other aspects that still require close attention.

ACTU secretary Sally McManus said the bill was “a step towards ending the wage crisis that working people have been battling through for a decade”. But Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said the bill was “flawed and unnecessary”, and in its current form it would implement major and regressive changes to Australia’s workplace relations arrangements that would set us back decades and damage the economy.

A major deal-breaker remains the government’s insistence on including in the bill an expansion of a multi-employer bargaining stream with the potential for nationwide strikes. The government has sought to downplay the potential impact of the measure. But business groups have every right to feel they have been blindsided by changes designed to appease the trade union movement. Given the significance of the bill, and the potential impact on the economy and workers, more time is needed for a full Senate investigation of the legislation. Delaying consideration of the bill in the Senate until this has been done is the only sensible course of action.