Undue haste on IR is the enemy of good government

The confusion that still surrounds attempts to ram through changes to Australia’s industrial relations laws and the creation of a federal anti-corruption commission is further proof that undue haste is the enemy of good government. That this is the situation the Albanese team finds itself in in the dying days of the parliamentary sitting year is enlightening given the noise made by Labor and independent candidates during the election campaign about the need for greater consultation and collaboration. It is also a demonstration that the business of government is more complex and messy than the highly orchestrated foreign engagements Labor has used to great effect to burnish its standing at home.

The government remains hopeful it will get its way before the end of the year both on IR and the establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The Senate voted on Tuesday to sit for two extra days in order to get the government’s legislative agenda through parliament. With last-minute, high-pressure negotiations under way with business and vital crossbench senators, the expectation in Canberra is that legislation in some form will pass.

Given the sweeping nature of the IR reforms, packaged together in an omnibus bill that has faced only limited scrutiny, it is reasonable to ask: Why the rush? Evidence of haste can be found in the fact that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations’ quoted source for how much business could expect to pay to enter a multiple-employer agreement described themselves as “a cross between business strategist, modern-day spiritual healer, and self-development expert”. The department said the reference was an error. But confusion still reigned on the potential cost to small business of $14,538 and medium business of more than $75,000. A Senate report into the legislation has called for more small businesses to be exempted from Labor’s multi-employer bargaining regime. The majority report said the definition of a small-business employer should be increased from fewer than 15 employees to fewer than 20 employees including regular and systematic casuals. Key Senate crossbencher David Pocock has maintained that the most contentious changes should be split off and delayed until the new year.

With the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the government on Tuesday unveiled a series of amendments it hopes will be enough to win the support of the Coalition in the Senate to avoid having to rely on the Greens, who are fixated on the political theatre of public hearings, through which the process often becomes the punishment. The proposed amendments include changes to the definition of corrupt conduct and a clarification that the commissioner may deal with a corruption issue on their own initiative; surveillance and interception warrants must now be issued by eligible judges of federal superior courts; and the power of the NACC Inspector regarding witness summonses and arrest warrants will be enhanced. There will be greater safeguards for the protection of journalists in relation to search warrants and extended protections for their sources, as well as improved safeguards for the wellbeing of those called to the commission and a requirement that the commissioner advise witnesses of the outcome of investigations into them. The Coalition is still concerned that union officials will not be subject to the commission. It wants the test for public hearings to be strengthened and for the commissioner to consider the extent of the corruption, the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct and any “unfair prejudice” to a person’s reputation, privacy and safety.

As is the case with industrial relations, the government must slow down and take proper account of the concerns of key stakeholders – such as the Law Council of Australia, which believes the parliamentary inquiry into the NACC had insufficient time to subject this scheme to adequate scrutiny. The Law Council has a point. The bills to establish the NACC were introduced to parliament on September 28 and submissions to the inquiry closed on October 14. The government must explain why it has not included a provision requiring the NACC to suspend its proceedings and refer wrongdoers to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as soon as it becomes apparent that criminal conduct might have taken place. Persisting with NACC inquiries in those circumstances might provide some entertaining public hearings but only a court can punish and jail wrongdoers. At the moment, the government has decided against including a provision requiring the NACC to give priority to the interests of justice.

As with industrial relations, the impression given is of a government desperate to put runs on the board regardless of the long-term consequences. Labor is delivering on IR to its trade union mates at the expense of small business and ordinary workers who stand to lose their jobs. On the NACC, Anthony Albanese is attempting to harness the self-interest of major parties to win bipartisan support from the Coalition rather than be held hostage to more extreme demands in the Senate. This may be politics as usual but it falls a long way short of the new era of high standards voters were promised at the election.