Australia politics live: Plibersek dismisses mining industry’s ‘completely hysterical reaction’ to IR bill | Australian politics

Chamber of commerce campaign against IR bill heats up

Australia’s chambers of commerce have penned an open letter to senators, pleading with them to either split or kill the government’s proposed workplace relations overhaul, AAP reports.

With the Labor government aiming to pass the bill before the year is out, the letter blasts the timeframe on the bill as “absurdly short” and says jobs and businesses are in jeopardy if it becomes law.

It’s signed by Australia’s national, state and territory chambers of commerce, and calls on senators to try to split controversial elements out of the bill and pass some straightforward changes as soon as possible.

If that can’t happen, they want senators to oppose the bill in its entirety.

“As we emerge from the pandemic, businesses are dealing with surging energy costs, rising interest rates and face serious global economic headwinds,” the letter reads.

“The last thing we need is for jobs to be in jeopardy because of rushed new rules and red tape.”

The letter outlines business concern multi-employer bargaining changes will “drag them into a complex system they can’t afford”.

They also say higher costs will drive inflation and push up interest rates, and “one-size-fits-all” wages will undermine flexibility and productivity.

“We all share the ambition of wage growth, but lifting productivity is the way to do this, not by taking control away from businesses and their employees,” it reads.

“Some employers will cut back on ambitions to grow. Others will be forced to close their doors.”

Labor has indicated it won’t let the controversial elements be split from the bill, saying that would defeat the overall purpose of getting wages moving.

Katy Gallagher on whether the upper house will sit for longer: ‘if the Senate agrees, then that will occur’

Just to be clear, it is almost a done deal that the Senate will be sitting longer.

For those who missed it, this was Katy Gallagher this morning, speaking to ABC radio RN:

I’m talking to all of the crossbench around the sitting program and whether or not we can secure some extra days. And I think I’m pretty hopeful that might look like a Friday this week and a Friday next week. And we’ll see where we get to at the end of the first week. We’ve got a lot of bills to get through. And the Senate is going to be a pretty wild old place for the next fortnight in processing legislation and debating legislation. So I think we will end up with extra hours. We haven’t locked everybody in on that yet. But I think the government’s position is we’d like to sit to get a whole range of bills done. And if the Senate agrees, then that will occur.

(The Senate has to agree, which means a vote – which is why she is talking to the crossbench).

Greens push for amendments to childcare bill

The Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi has a few amendments she would like to move on the government’s cheaper childcare bill (including changing the name):

The amendments aim to:

• Improve access to early education and care by abolishing the activity test,

• Improve transparency measures within the bill by expanding reporting requirements for providers,

• Extend staff discounts for early education and care, and

• Rename the bill from “Cheaper Child Care” to “More Affordable Early Education and Care”.

The government and at least one crossbencher would have to vote for them for it to pass (if the opposition does not support it).

Faruqi says they are necessary changes:

The activity test is cruel, punitive and beyond repair. As the Senate inquiry heard from numerous stakeholders, the activity test has the effect of denying access to early education for the most disadvantaged children and punishing families with insecure, casual work.

We welcome new reporting requirements for large providers in the bill but consider that these requirements should be expanded to cover all providers.

The Senate inquiry heard that the language of ‘cheaper childcare’ used in the bill could undervalue the role of educators. We agree and will move to rename the bill to refer to ‘more affordable early education and care’.

The Greens believe early childhood education and care is an essential service that should be free and accessible for all. High-quality early education can give children the best start in life and is a critical component of lifelong learning.

While the government bill does not go nearly far enough to achieve our vision of universal and free early education and care, the Australian Greens support the bill as it nonetheless represents a step in the right direction.”

Financial services minister says buy now, pay later regulation about ‘regulating to risk’

Stephen Jones has spoken to the Seven network about the buy now, pay later consultation paper, saying it was about “regulating to risk”.

These are all the reasons that we do want to look at them, but we want to ensure that we’re regulating to risk. And we’re also mindful of the fact that for the majority of consumers, they’re using this as an alternative to a credit card and they’re doing so safely. We don’t want to crash down on innovation. We don’t want to stop people getting access to something that they’re using properly and safely. But we do want to ensure that there is a basic level of check in place here that ensures that it’s both affordable and appropriate to the consumers, which is the basic test inside the National Consumer Credit Act. The thing is, these aren’t home loans, and that’s an important distinction to make. These are generally small amounts of credit in the one and $200 level. So we want to ensure that if we are moving to regulate, it’s appropriate to the level of risk involved.

You can find the Senate paper here.

For those wanting to see the program:

Further to Josh’s earlier post:

And … the parliament is sitting.

The House and Senate have commenced. It is going to be a very long couple of weeks.

Jim Chalmers: Cop27’s loss and damage fund ‘the beginning of the conversation’

On the loss and damage fund the Cop27 agreed to establish (it is not funded as yet) Jim Chalmers told the Nine network it is the start of the conversation.

The fund is designed to help developing nations cope with the impacts of climate change. It was one of the things Chris Bowen was negotiating for while at the UN climate conference.

First of all, it’s not a compensation fund, it’s not about reparations or compensation. It’s based on a pretty simple principle that I think a lot of Australians would agree with, and that is that the developed world has a role to play in helping the developing world deal with the impact of climate change.

I think, particularly for Australians, we do have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters in the Pacific, in particular, to see what we can do to help. Now, this fund that was agreed at the COP conference, it’s been agreed in concept, it’s the beginning of the conversation, not the end of the conversation – the design of the fund, the contribution of the fund, that will all be subject to further conversations.

Andrew Wilkie to make accusations in parliament of ‘fraudulent behaviour’ in coal industry

Josh Butler