In the next parliamentary term we need to see a consolidation of the changes Work Choices has brought about, despite the differences between the government and opposition in this campaign.
There is a loose consensus around two key reform items that will yield substantial efficiency dividends and possibly reduce unemployment below 4 percent during the 42nd parliament if the next government is able to maintain the momentum generated in, this most recent term.
The first is award simplification. Many would have been pleased to see during the debate last week between Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey and opposition spokeswoman Julia Gillard. General bipartisan support for award simplification. The government and opposition have in mind processes of simplification that could produce different outcomes, but there is at least a common view that our system of awards is too complex.
The second issue will prove to be of great consequence. Over the next three years, the government and parliament will need to decide to what extent the federal system, the key to a unitary system, is to prevail over state systems. About 85 per cent of employees fall within the federal jurisdiction. But since Work Choices was introduced, state governments have been enacting legislation on workplace matters that are not precluded by the federal act. The Workplace Relations Act establishes the supremacy of the federal system but preserves the states' ability to enact legislation on specific employment matters.
These matters include the method and frequency of payment of wages or salaries, deductions from wages or salaries and long service leave. None of this is to argue that state governments have no role in the regulation of aspects of employment. But to achieve greater clarity for employers and employees, a decision will need to be made about whether state legislation in all these areas sits comfortably within an increasingly unitary system.
An example of this complexity was seen in Victoria when the state government introduced the Victorian Workers' Wages Protection Bill 2007, which provided, among other things, that employers would be required to pay wages in the form of cash unless authorised by the employee to pay it in other forms, such as by electronic funds transfer. The Liberal opposition resisted the bin and the government decided not to proceed with the cash payment requirement.
The purpose of this reference is not to make a judgement about the merits of the aborted cash payment requirement. Rather, it's about the desirability of a state government enacting legislation on matters that most would think the federal act, and the Workplace Ombudsman, would be responsible for addressing.
The interaction between the levels of government is a source of great complexity. We need an active period of continued reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment