Rebel MPs threaten Howard's new law

John Howard

John Howard was asked the perennial question about his future as Australian Prime Minister this week. In return, he gave his equally perennial answer: "I will do what I said I would do in 2003 when I said I would continue as leader of the [Liberal] party. I said that I would remain leader of the party so long as the party wanted me to and it was in the best interests of the party that I should do so, and nothing has changed."

In fact, it has. The absolute authority gained by Howard last year through his fourth straight election win is crumbling from within, and under assault from without. Even the fright given the nation by the discovery of an alleged homegrown terror cell has not protected him, as did the series of security scares that began with the crisis over the refugees aboard the Norwegian freighter, the MV Tampa.

This week, he faced serious rebellion in his ranks, and a dramatic reversal in his personal standing and in voter support for his Government. A floundering Labor has been handed new life on a platter, with polls reporting a rise in support that would have propelled it into Government had an election been held when they were made.

None of this is any guarantee that wily John Howard will fall. Labor has repeatedly shown itself capable of tripping over any prize it has been handed, and the Liberal Party - and opinion polls - have yet to show any real urge to dump the Prime Minister in favour of his Treasurer and heir-apparent, Peter Costello.

But Howard's authority has been challenged seriously for the first time, and he has not been able to deflect it by the usual one-two of economic sunshine and national security.

Howard's bete noir is his last great political ambition: the overhaul of Australia's industrial relations system, taking all authority and responsibility from the states and investing it in Canberra, and stripping the workforce of the vast bulk of the rights and conditions it has enjoyed for decades, including redress for unfair dismissal, public holidays, and most overtime and penalty rates.

The logic is the mantra of competition that has dominated more than a decade of economic reform in Australia. Howard argues that a flourishing economy requires business and industry to operate with the least restriction and lowest possible costs.

Labor in turn will be able to protect its interests through the laws of supply and demand, which will increasingly tip its way as the population ages and workforce constricts.

This week brought further evidence to support the Government's argument. A study by Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies warned the economy would face a shortfall of 195,000 workers within five years, a finding Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews said emphasised the urgency of introducing new laws.

The argument has not convinced the overwhelming bulk of Australians. Two weeks ago more than 500,000 joined nationwide union protests against the proposed industrial overhaul. This week, two new polls confirmed the anger smouldering in the suburbs.

An ACNeilsen poll in the Sydney Morning Herald found 60 per cent of voters were unhappy with Howard's plans, a dissatisfaction deepened by his intention to sell the Government's controlling stake in telecommunications giant Telstra.

Labor's primary vote overtook that of the Government and, under the two-party preferred vote that determines electoral outcomes in Australia, Labor surged to a 58 per cent to 42 per cent lead. Howard's personal standing plunged seven points to a four-and-half year low of 45 per cent, while Opposition Leader Kim Beazley's approval rose eight points to 43 per cent.

A Newspoll in the Australian reported similar results: a 54 per cent to 46 per cent lead to Labor in the two-party preferred vote, although Howard's standing inched up from a previous four-year low to 43 per cent, ahead of Beazley's 35 per cent.

Overall, Newspoll found 51 per cent preferred Howard as Prime Minister, although 20 per cent were undecided. Another poll found Australians were split evenly on whether he should stay or go.

But polls can change dramatically over two years as voters' memories fade or their concerns are overtaken by new events. "I have no doubt that once these changes go through, then the experience will fall far short of the catastrophe being predicted by our opponents," Howard told reporters.

But his immediate problems lie within. Vulnerable Government MPs are concerned that they will be hurt by the new laws, which have been rushed through the House of Representatives and which are now being pushed with what many see as indecent haste through the Senate.

The report of an inquiry into the new laws by a Government-dominated senate committee recommended seven relatively minor changes to help to ease the passage of the package through an Upper House, in which Howard holds a one-vote majority.

But these failed to touch the concerns held by senators representing the Nationals, the junior Coalition partner, and especially new Queensland senator Barnaby Joyce, who has already frustrated proposed changes to competition law by crossing the floor to vote with Labor.

The Nationals are fighting a long-term decline in their rural support base and are taking tougher stands on key policies: in an irony of Howard's golden age of absolute control of both houses, the most effective opposition lies in the Government benches.

Joyce has yet to declare whether he will vote for or against the legislation, but the indications are that he will not do so without significant changes. He has said that he would be influenced by the position of his party in his home state of Queensland.

This week, in an unprecedented move, the Queensland Nationals voted with the Labor Government to condemn the legislation, and called on their state senators to vote it down. The issue was further hammered out during a meeting of the state management committee in Brisbane.

The Nationals have two concerns: that the laws, by replacing state awards with single national agreements, are unconstitutional; and that the loss of key conditions and protections undermine the structure and stability of the family.

They want the legislation amended to protect state-based industrial systems, ensure penalty rates will be paid for public holidays, prevent large companies breaking their workforces into units of fewer than 100 employees to enjoy freedom from unfair dismissal actions, protection for young workers applying for their first jobs, and more resources to protect rural workers from exploitation.

They may get their way. Costello and Andrews have indicated some changes may be accepted, although both expect the bulk of the package to pass intact. If so, the only hope for opponents will lie in Beazley's promise to tear up the legislation if he becomes Prime Minister.