Whatever his policy, Peter Dutton will be a big target on workplace relations

Fri 18 Oct 2024
ABC News

Peter Dutton, wearing a suit and tie, glares from his seat in parliament.
Industrial relations could be dangerous ground for Peter Dutton in the upcoming election.   


Peter Dutton has been receiving a good many political breaks recently — Anthony Albanese's new house is the latest icing on the cake.

Although the Coalition is not expected to win next year's election, presently it looks placed to do well.

So, as they prepare their campaign, what issue would Liberal strategists be most afraid of? My bet would be the looming battle over industrial relations. This could be more dangerous for Dutton than his risky gamble to promote nuclear energy.

With the election set to be fought largely around the cost of living, the government will reach for workplace issues as a potential lifeline.

Industrial relations is made for a ferocious Labor scare campaign that the Coalition will find extremely difficult to counter.

Government record could play well to outer suburbs
As the opposition keeps saying, the Albanese government has delivered extensively to the union movement's demands, especially on behalf of low-paid workers. 

It has supported wage rises and will itself pay for some (notably for childcare staff).

It has legislated to protect the rights of casuals, provide minimum standards for gig workers, and stop employers using labour-hire arrangements to undercut wages. 

Wage theft has been outlawed, domestic violence leave granted and the "right to disconnect" introduced.

Most importantly, multi-employer bargaining — hated by parts of business — has been facilitated, and this is sure to spread in coming years.

You don't need much of a head for political tactics to devise Labor's campaign.

It would go something like this: "The Albanese government has advocated for higher wages and given you all these benefits and protections, that the Liberals will strip back. Remember the Howard government's WorkChoices."

This could be potent among the lower-to-middle-income workers in the outer suburbs, to whom Dutton is pitching.


Coalition facing business wish list as it prepares its policy
As in most areas, the opposition says it will release its industrial relations policy closer to the election.

So far, it has promised to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission (the "cop on the beat") and the Registered Organisations Commission (a regulatory body governing unions and employer organisations).

It has also said it will repeal the right to disconnect, review the labour-hire law, change the definition of casual employment and reduce the regulatory burden on small business.

The Coalition is under pressure from business to agree to a wish list to tilt the playing field back towards employers. For instance, this week the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry called for the definition of small businesses to be expanded so that more firms would benefit from having fewer workplace burdens imposed on them.

The opposition must decide how many of the Labor changes it will pledge to roll back or alter. At the same time, it will have to try to reassure workers it doesn't have a hidden agenda. Both will be difficult.

On the roll back, employers will be pressing for the Coalition to go further than is politically wise. There are senior voices within the Coalition urging caution. But whatever Dutton says he won't do is likely to be met with scepticism by a distrustful electorate.

Regardless of the policy it announces, there'll be no way the Coalition can avoid becoming a big target on industrial relations.

Moreover, its argument that the government's IR changes are bad for the economy will be hard to prosecute because it will be some time before their full impact can be judged. The government itself has an independent review of its initial measures, due to report in January. That will allow it to either claim everything is hunky dory, or offer some fine-tuning.

Work choices 2.0

Labor majority government wrote on Nov 5^th, 2024 at 4:36pm:


No they are too smart for that, it will have a different name maybe even no name.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 5^th, 2024 at 10:20pm:



what hard work? 

Washing dishes a few days a week is hardly hard work. And you get what you get BECAUSE labor ensured your minimum wage. You probably could make more money if you weren't so lazy

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2024 at 7:32am:


Not trying to f'n be rude to you, but "...and the horse you rode in upon".

I have had the biggest hard luck story going on in my life for the Rockhampton region. The fact that I don't complain about it is because I have been fairly lucky to have two parents in a marriage closely approaching their 50th year. I am approaching my 46th year, early next year.

You know what happens to teenage Rockhamptonites who were born between 1977 and 1982? They apply for the army. But, then again, they don't take people who are autistic. That's the navy. If I was not such a homophobe, I would probably be an Admiral by now.

Long story short, the 5 (and a bit) months of drill instruction I got in the year 2001 would be the equivalent of 5 tours of some place overseas. 6 months on, 6 months off. That is, unless you cut a deal where you are overseas for 3 months on, 3 months off. Army reservists do that. Some of them are overseas right now in Ukraine, learning how to prevent WW4 from taking place only 3 years after WW3 ended. Not joking at all. Because if WW4 takes place, I will have to read the instruction manual of how to drive a submersible and reverse park it in the harbour of a nearby port. Maybe I could park the submarine up river; get off at Coorooman Creek; and hitch hike from Cawarral back to town I could pack the rest of my things.

There were plenty of low-rent empty houses in town here. Plenty of drug-addicted former army riflemen living around the place. So, being a 19 y.o. pizza delivery driver, it is not all that implausible that I could perhaps at least be a medic, and get paid good money. But, if I was a soldier, I might be able to cozy up to the female medics for information about how to become a doctor.

But, you know, being a person with multiple attempts of "drill instruction first aid" courses, all I am allowed to do these days is to work as a chemist, or aged care. Otherwise, I am well versed to be a criminal profiler, if the Rockhampton CIB wants to make it official without me going away to Brisbane.

But my "chicken as ever" parents think that I am a drunk because I have drunk 40 to 50 bottles of scotch in the last 5 or 6 years. Coronavirus be damned for shutting down my 30 hours a week worklife. But at least I know that I won't be called back to the army to be redeployed to the Navy and learning how to fire missiles at an enemy who could actually be a friend.

Labor is the reason why Australia was in a financial mess. LNP is the reason why Australia is very safe. If you find me voting Family First as my first preference, you can imagine that the prisons are releasing the detainees to go fight in the army, and get suspended sentences/pardons.

Don't give me this bugger'n shite that I don't work hard. I have been waiting to die, ever since I found out that I have an enlarged aorta. But that desire to live is the reason why my friends know that I work more than just a 3pm to midnight existence (no matter how few hours I work).

You obviously are originally from SEQld.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 6^th, 2024 at 11:20am:


I am non-union. I might well spend that $2 a week to be in a union, just as a safety net. But, overall, I am subconsciously non-union.

If you find that earning $1000 a week is too little, you obviously have had a very easy life/upbringing. Try getting paid $3000 for a month. But at least I know how to stretch my budget. Sure, it was free accommodation. However, I held a regional record of having profited the most out of that payment. I went home a month later with $2400 in my pocket. Bread, milk, cereal, green tea, pork or chicken sausages, and vegetables are good eatin'. It is also reasonably cheap, too.

Quote:


I will explain it to you at your intellect level. You do not know what you are talking about. When I was a teenager, $50,000 per year was excellent money. These days, $50,000 per year is still okay. You just need to budget better. $41,500 is the poverty level wage. 20 x 48 = 960 x 25/hr = $24,000 per year. But being single and in no need to pay child support anymore (they are all above the age of 14, now), getting cheap rent at my place (where my ex-girlfriend at one stage owned a third of the house) that is about to fall over, unless my wannabe "Julie Andrews" of a mother decides to quit her gym membership and put the money towards investing in my house.

Quote:


If you are a Labor party voter, I can understand that you are in business and want to see wage cuts. Me too. But I am not a business manager. I am just business savvy. However, if you are a Labor voter and working in a supervisory role, it would not surprise me that you want to see layabouts getting paid off to sit on their arses.

I voted LNP in the first year that I was eligible to vote: 1996. I have never been so politically motivated to make sure that the "Labor bastards" are kept honest, until they rid themselves of that cuckolded/threatened bitch of a Prime Minister, who watched one too many Warner Brothers cartoons. I actually feel sorry for the guy, because he did it tough through his early years. But, the fellow is only, say, 16 years older than me. 16 years ago, I was considering rejoining the army. But I held a grudge against a certain Major in Townsville (read: "Cairns"). It is amazing how easy it is to disarm someone in the army and carjack his personal vehicle to drive to the nearby police station and present a glock to the desk clerk and not get a criminal record as a result.

So, you were saying something about driving up wages so that old people can't afford to eat anything other than what they serve at aged care facilities?

Continue....