Miners lash industrial draft as ‘too sanguine’

Mining giants have criticised the Productivity Commission’s draft assessment of the nation’s industrial relations system as ‘too sanguine’.

Mining giants have criticised the Productivity Commission’s draft assessment of the nation’s industrial relations system as “too sanguine”, adding to calls from corporate Australia for changes to a reform blueprint to be ­delivered to the Turnbull government next month.

In a submission to the commission obtained by The Australian, the Minerals Council of Australia says the industrial relations system has “significant shortcomings”.

However, the Productivity Commission’s draft report and recommendations had “failed to grapple sufficiently” with how the system would contend with the effect of structural adjustments and global economic changes.

“The experience of the minerals industry is that the current workplace relations regime has encouraged unreasonable claims, compromised workplace harmony and productivity, increased business costs unnecessarily, delayed adjustments to altered conditions and put at risk current and future high-wage jobs in mining,” the submission says.

In its draft report in August, the commission disappointed many in business by finding the system needed minor repair rather than replacement, that the “Australian idiosyncrasy” of awards should be retained, and that enterprise bargaining “generally works well”.

The draft also found that the current framework was “not systemically dysfunctional”, a conclusion the Minerals Council submission says was “hardly a ringing endorsement”.

“The unfortunate implication is ‘near enough is good enough’,” the council says. “A period of protracted below-average growth, weak productivity, ­declining competitiveness and rising unemployment in Australia demands a more searching consideration of the micro-­economic foundations of future national prosperity.”

The Minerals Council submission is significant as it adds to pressure from some of Australia’s biggest companies for the commission to change planks of its draft when it delivers its final ­report to the government in ­November.

Companies such as freight giant Toll Holdings, Qantas and major meat processor Teys Australia have pointed to concerns about parts of the draft.

Although the council supports “a number” of the commission’s recommendations, it says the commission “is too sanguine about the performance of Australia’s labour-market institutions and the workplace foundations for future national prosperity.”

In a separate submission, the Australian Mines and Metals Association has opposed the draft recommendation to scrap lifetime appointments to the Fair Work Commission.

AMMA, which applauded the most recent appointments to Fair Work by former employment minister Eric Abetz, said limited terms for commissioners would “cloud the independence of their decision-making” and “would have the effect of making the FWC like the US civil service when the presidency changes”.

“The FWC appointees would also be unduly mindful of their post-appointment careers,” the AMMA submission said. “Many FWC members do not come from thriving legal practices and have not made their fortune prior to appointment and have mortgages to pay, children at school etc.”

However AMMA, whose executive director Scott Barklamb deemed the inquiry’s draft report “too cautious” overall, supported the Productivity Commission’s proposal that performance reviews apply to FWC members.

Unions also have opposed planks of the draft report, especially because it proposed an overhaul of penalty rates.