Julia Gillard outlined the results of consultations and more of the shape of the policy which will be embodied in legislation soon to be introduced into Parliament in an address to the National Press Club yesterday. The transcript is here. Commentary is largely focused on the unfair dismissal changes for small business, and there’s a sample of the reaction in a good article summarising union and academic views in The Age. But equally important are the machinations going on in the Industrial Relations Commission over “modern awards”, where employers have been presenting what are basically award-stripping ambit claims, and some odd interventions from Gillard herself [the process was examined in a previous LP post by Senator Rachel Siewert of The Greens] and the rather weak protections for collective bargaining that have been outlined.

It’s all very well to say that Fair Work Australia will be able to make good faith bargaining orders, but if they’re only weakly enforceable, and if there’s no power to arbitrate in the face of, well, bad faith, then it seems somewhat of a fig leaf. The ongoing legal maneouvring Telstra have engaged in, which has just had a setback with employees rejecting a non-union collective agreement in a Commission ordered ballot, is a case in point. Differential pay offers (which have nothing to do with rewarding merit and performance and everything to do with de-unionisation), legal stalling, failure to recognise bargaining agents and “wait them out” negotiating are all weapons in the armoury of management strategy, and it’s far from clear from what Gillard had to say that these tactics couldn’t be employed by business under the new laws.

Many Labor MPs aren’t happy campers at the moment, among others. Kevin Rudd’s cosy meetings with Fairfax management have not gone down well, and MPs are concerned that their constituents have been let down. IR is going to be back on the political agenda in a big way in the very near future, and the sentiment in the community for employment rights and the union’s third party campaigning skills now represent as much of a political danger for Labor as they were a political plus in the 2007 federal election.

The discussion paper emphasises the fact that 77% of Australians over 65 rely to greater or lesser degree on income support. It also highlights the fact that on current projections, the percentage of the population over 65 will rise from 13% now to 25% by 2047. Few aged pensioners currently supplement their income with paid work, but that can be expected to increase, and there may also be debates about the age cut-in as the labour supply situation alters and health outcomes improve. Because the income support system costs 6.8% of GDP, its sustainability is very relevant, and increases are also very expensive because of the very large number of recipients. The paper also considers those on Disability Support and Carer pensions, where the issues are different for many – with fewer having substantial assets and more receiving some income from paid work.

While the Labor Party has indicated – both in policy and in post-election statements – that increases to pension levels are planned, and it’s an objective I support, I don’t think a particularly responsible attitude towards policy reviews is to effectively ignore them and call for immediate action without actually identifying either where the money comes from or responsing to the policy issues raised is awfully helpful to anyone. For a start, it won’t happen, so it’s effectively political posturing. Secondly, the government faces some degree of political risk any time it does start a relatively open ended policy process. It’s designed to deliver better outcomes, but I’m sure that it’s not universally popular within the Labor Party precisely because it seems – on the evidence so far – to lead more to political flak than to genuine consultation. Enjoy it while it lasts, would be my advice.