The federal government has made concessions on its contentious industrial relations legislation in a bid to get it through the parliament before Christmas.
Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke has agreed to amend the bill amid ongoing talks with business groups who remain firmly opposed to an expansion of multi-employer bargaining – the most contentious element of the wide-ranging legislation.
Despite the concessions, business representatives remain unconvinced, describing parts of the bill as "bad policy" and calling for the passage of legislation to be delayed until it can be thoroughly scrutinised by the Senate.
Mr Burke said the government will make it a requirement that a majority of employees within each workplace would need to vote in support of multi-employer bargaining before an agreement can take place.
"One of the concerns, which was a reasonable concern, was… one employer where there's a heap of staff, another where it's much smaller numbers, and effectively, the bigger workplaces overwhelming the vote of the smaller one," Mr Burke told Sky News on Sunday.
"It'll be changed, so that to be part of an agreement, where you're getting a majority of the staff, it's employer by employer where that's counted.
"This puts an end to the argument that you'll end up with workplaces that didn't want to be part of an agreement, but somehow got roped in anyway, or didn't want to be part of industrial action.
"If your vote against any of the stages at that business level, then you're not part of it."
Labor wants the bill passed this year, arguing the proposed changes will help drive up wages and make the enterprise bargaining system fairer for workers.
Pocock calls for more time to consider bill
While the government has the numbers to get the bill through the lower house, it faces some hurdles in the Senate, with key crossbenchers calling for more time to review the bill while expressing concern about the breadth of the changes and potential unintended consequences.
Independent ACT senator David Pocock said the government should split the bill to allow for the passage of non-controversial changes while further time and consideration were given to the more contentious elements.
"I do not want to stand in the way of low-paid workers, especially in highly feminised industries, getting a pay rise," he said.
"I do want to make sure we get this legislation right.
"The bill was introduced just over a week ago and already we've seen a number of significant changes flagged by the government.
"This says to me that we need more time."
Senator Pocock said the legislation had been "very rushed" and he was concerned about the lack of time given to the Senate to conduct consultations.
"This is not about delaying, it is about having the minimum amount of time needed to do the job I've been elected to do properly," Senator Pocock said.
"I want to work constructively with the government to make sure this bill does get wages moving, improves equality in the workplace and also avoids any unintended consequences."
However, the government faces some hurdles in the Senate, with key crossbenchers calling for more time to review the bill while expressing concern about the breadth of the changes and potential unintended consequences.
Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia Jennifer Westacott welcomed the government's decision to reduce some of the "most harmful" elements of the bill but argued "big problems remain".
"It's good that the government agrees that the system should be fundamentally democratic and that workplaces that already bargain should be able to continue doing so, but we'll need to see exactly how these changes work," Ms Westacott said.
"We welcome the government's concessions and will continue working in good faith to solve some of the other big problems in this bill, including a lowest common denominator risk to wages and increased complexity that could delay wage increases."
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the proposed amendments do little to allay their fundamental concerns.
"Pushing multi-employer bargaining across all sectors without clear definitions and limits can only lead to unsustainable wage outcomes not supported by productivity," Chief Executive Andrew Mckellar said.
"It's bad policy and it's worse economics.
"We call on the government to delay passage of the bill to ensure the Senate can undertake an open and transparent review.
"At a minimum, the government should split the bill and remove the multi-employer provisions."
Independent MP Kate Chaney described Mr Burke's concession as "sensible" but said while the bill sought to do "some good things" she would not support it in its current form.
"The multi-employer bargaining for the supported stream is a good thing, those low-paid industries, and that may well get wages moving… in childcare, aged care, largely feminised industries," she told the ABC's Insiders.
"I'm concerned about the overreach and the extension of multi-employer bargaining to any group that are deemed to have a common interest as determined by the Fair Work Commission.
"I think I would resist it; I would vote against it at the moment because of that overreach."
