Petrol excise, Medicare safety-net, David Hicks, now Work Choices. John Howard is a master at successfully defusing unpopular election year issues. This particular example demolishes his "I make tough choices even if they're unpopular" persona (more here about that), but the real question is whether the new measures will make a difference when the weakest in society apply for a job.
The "Safety Net" is more about perceptions than substance. There's three aspects of the new regulations that fall short in providing any long term protection.
The first is the arbitrary wage / salary level under which the new laws become effective. At $75k, the new regulations cover a large section of the workforce. Without indexation, this amount will erode over time, and more employees in the middle income bracket will find themselves outside "the net." This government is reluctant to alter threshold levels once set, as shown by the Medicare surcharge example.
Secondly, the "no disadvantage" test allows non-monitory offsets to compensate for lost conditions. A particular "offset" will have differing values to different employees. Unless the value of the offset can be easily calculated, I can see employees being coerced to accept dubious "benefits" in lieu of cash.
Thirdly, the "no disadvantage test" doesn't apply to companies that are under financial difficulties. Some clever accounting may be all that's needed to prevent the application of the "no disadvantage test" for new employees.
The changes will take the heat off the government and stymie Labor when it comes to IR. Combined with a giveaway budget, it may be all that's needed to give the government momentum during the run up to the election.
However, there's one last, important issue.
The new regulations aren't retrospective. If you've already been sold a dud AWA, bad luck! Don't be surprised if the government's taken to task on this and there's yet another change to Work Choices in the next few weeks.
