Coalition abandons industrial relations changes

The Morrison government has dumped its controversial changes to the Fair Work Act’s better off overall test.

Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

The Morrison government has dumped its controversial changes to the Fair Work Act’s better off overall test.

The decision endorsed by Coalition MPs on Tuesday follows widespread opposition from Senate crossbenchers, the Labor Party and the union movement to the proposal.

One Nation demanded on Monday the Coalition immediately dump the BOOT changes ahead of further negotiations over the government’s industrial relations bill.

Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter said on Tuesday the government’s decision to drop the proposal showed its willingness to listen and work constructively with the Senate the crossbench to negotiate passage through the Senate of the bill.

He said removal of the “modest” proposal to give COVID-impacted employers more ability to bypass the BOOT blew away the smokescreen Labor was using to justify its opposition to the entire bill.

“While we continue to believe this was a sensible and proportionate proposal in light of the current challenges our economy is facing, we also understand that this measure had the potential to distract from other elements of the package which will help employers and employees recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic,” he said.

“It’s now time for Anthony Albanese to get on board with the Government and put the interests of Australians ahead of his own political games and ambition.”

But Labor’s industrial relations spokesman Tony Burke said the government had only backed off the “unfair change” because it could not get it through the Senate.

“But now we know what they want to do,” he said. “They want to cut workers’ take home pay and if they get another chance they’ll try again.”

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts said the government had listened to his concerns about the BOOT changes and he welcomed their “show of good faith”.

“This is a win for the protection of workers,” he said.

“One nation will continue to negotiate with the government on other aspects of the legislation that needs amending – there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.”

ACTU president Michele O’Neil said the backdown was “important but not enough” as the rest of the bill would leave workers with less secure jobs and cut pay and conditions.

“Removing the BOOT changes from the bill must not distract from the permanent changes that this bill would make to the bargaining process – changes that will give more power to employers and will leave working people worse off,” she said.

“The changes that remain in the bill would remove requirements for employers to properly explain new agreements, give employees copies of the entire new agreement including policies contained in it, tell employees when they have started bargaining, or even provide the agreement in a language that all employees can read and understand.”

She said the Fair Work Commission would be stripped of its power to properly examine whether workers were better off with its role reduced to a “tick and flick” with unreasonably short time limits.

“Bargaining is how wages improve, and these changes will leave workers worse off and with fewer rights. We will continue to discuss the effect that this bill will have on the lives of working people and on the economic recovery from the pandemic recession with the crossbench and why it should be opposed.”

A Labor Party spokesperson said an MP told a caucus meeting on Tuesday morning that regardless of the government’s position on the better-off-overall-test “we know what they want to do and this issue will not go away.”

Twenty-three labour law experts warned last week the “deeply flawed” proposal would “punch a great big hole in the award safety net”, encouraging employers to pursue strategies to reduce wages.

University of Adelaide law professor Andrew Stewart said no case had been made as to why the existing BOOT provision allowing the approval of sub-award agreements in exceptional circumstances was not sufficient to assist pandemic-hit employers.

Professor Stewart said agreements under the BOOT change could continue well after the two-year sunset clause, and even if not extensively used, the provision would encourage employers to pursue wage reduction strategies.