It is widely acknowledged that the opposition’s policy development under Peter Dutton was insufficient and delayed. Now, under the leadership of Sussan Ley, the opposition faces pressure to produce policies that may be seen as premature. Before the end of the year, Ley plans to unveil her immigration policy, which she has indicated will emphasize “principles.” The critical question remains whether it will include specific numbers and how detailed it will be.
The dilemma is clear: a detailed policy risks becoming outdated in two years, while a more general approach invites criticism. This week, the opposition continued to debate the right balance. This urgency for immediate policy is partly due to the Liberals’ internal divide over their core values. Conservatives and moderates are vying for dominance, and the immigration policy reflects these internal fractures.
Internal Struggles and Policy Challenges
Beyond the pressure to act quickly, Ley faces a fundamental challenge: how robust should the opposition’s policy be? In a significant speech in September, Ley argued against “dependency” on government support, a stance aligned with traditional Liberal beliefs in limited government spending. However, advocating for reduced middle-class welfare during an election campaign poses obvious risks.
Historically, reducing entitlements has been politically challenging, and in the current economic climate, it seems nearly impossible. The Albanese opposition, for example, initially supported the Coalition’s stage 3 income tax cuts, only to modify them in 2024. Dutton faced backlash for his proposed public service cuts, perceived as a blunt attack on bureaucrats. As the government seeks savings in its next budget, the opposition’s proposals for savings or tax increases remain vulnerable.
Focus on Industrial Relations
With these challenges in mind, many are watching the Liberals’ stance on industrial relations, a topic Ley has broadly addressed. The government has made significant concessions to the union movement, from facilitating multi-employer bargaining to legislating the “right to disconnect” and other pro-worker measures.
In October, Ley criticized Labor’s industrial relations changes, stating,
“Labor’s restrictive industrial relations changes are acting as a handbrake on productivity. Multi-employer bargaining laws are threatening small businesses with conditions they cannot afford.”
She emphasized the need for enterprise-level bargaining and flexible work arrangements that reflect the digital economy.
The Coalition’s Industrial Relations Dilemma
However, the question remains whether the Coalition can develop an industrial relations policy that aligns with its rhetoric and withstands a union and Labor campaign. Industrial relations should be a core issue for the Coalition, yet it was notably absent in the last election. The legacy of John Howard’s WorkChoices, which was perceived as an overreach, still haunts the Liberals. Party insiders contrast Howard’s “big bang” approach with Labor’s “boiling frog” strategy to gradually reshape the industrial relations landscape.
Tim Wilson, the opposition spokesman on industrial relations, employment, and small business, is tasked with navigating this complex terrain. Following the Liberals’ electoral setbacks, Wilson regained the Melbourne seat of Goldstein, previously lost to “teal” candidate Zoe Daniel in 2022. Known for his ambition and outspokenness, Wilson’s performance in this shadow portfolio will be crucial for his political future.
Innovative Solutions and Future Directions
In a recent speech to the HR Nicholls national conference, Wilson hinted at his policy approach, emphasizing a departure from his predecessors. He stated,
“If the future of Australia’s economy can be fuelled by nuclear power, we should be looking for equally innovative solutions in industrial relations that are about how we build a focus on simplification, empowerment and alignment to promote harmony.”
Wilson’s immediate focus is on building a movement to advocate for reform. He argued,
“If we go back and prosecute old debates on the unions’ turf, they’ll just be waiting with their baseball bats and intimidatory tactics. They own that field. We need a new playing field for industrial relations.”
He sees the integration of artificial intelligence in employment as a potential reset point, particularly for small businesses, and aims to drive policy that expands a small business constituency.
However, questions remain about whether small businesses have the capacity to push back against industrial relations policies perceived as unfavorable. Historically, big businesses have struggled to counter union influence effectively. If the Coalition proposes significant policy changes, it will face similar challenges to those encountered when advocating for reduced “dependency.”
As the opposition and business argue for industrial relations reforms to boost productivity, any suggestion of reversing union-won concessions is likely to provoke a strong voter backlash. Wilson’s task is formidable, and his success will depend on navigating these complex political and economic landscapes.
