The Albanese government has often – and rightly – been criticised for lacking policy boldness in areas such as climate change and the need to address inequality and poverty through measures such as increasing Jobseeker. But with regards to industrial relations, the government has shown that bold policy is not just possible, but also successful.

Prior to the election in 2022, enterprise bargaining was on life support.  Over a decade of efforts by business groups had led to a record low share of 14.8% of employees being covered by enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs). Enterprise agreements have long been disliked by companies and business groups because, as a general rule, they deliver better wage growth because they enable workers to combine their bargaining power – often and most effectively through representation by a union.

In 2023, the government introduced changes to workplace relations laws which strengthened the ability of workers to bargain in enterprise agreements and also to ensure more workers can be covered by such agreements. One significant policy reform was the introduction of the ability for multi-employer agreements to cover low-paid employees who often have little individual bargaining power.

The latest figures from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations show that there has been a very strong increase in the number of workers covered by EBAs – up to 21.3%. This is the first time more than 20% of workers have been covered by EBAs since June 2020.

But the even better story is that wage growth is also improving. The average annual wage growth of all workers covered by EBAs is now 4.8%. This is admittedly an abnormal spike in wage growth given the approval of a new multi-employer agreement for 91,000 workers in early childhood education and care (ECEC) in the last quarter of 2024. This wage increase was greatly required to assist some of the lowest-paid workers doing vital work in the ECEC sector.

The average wage growth on newly approved EBAs in the private sector was 4.0% – a level that has been relatively consistent for over a year. This suggests that changes to IR laws are not leading to an unsustainable surge in wage growth but, instead, sustained and steady higher wage growth.

The changes to IR laws have not caused a wage-price spiral. Indeed, since the changes, inflation has come down. But they have led to better wages for workers – especially the lowest paid and those who would otherwise have had little ability to negotiate for better wages.

Bold policy works. and the IR changes should be an example to follow.

That’s it! It’s over. You won’t see the house of representatives look like that ever again.

Anthony Albanese finishes it up with a big run down of the last three years (the bits they want you to focus on anyway) and then wraps it up.

Fare thee well 47th parliament. We barely knew you.

The Greens MP for Brisbane, asking perhaps his final question in the house of representatives, makes sure it is a doozy:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why would you invite Donald Trump it Australia when you have a Temu Trump sitting right opposite you! (He gestures to Peter Dutton)

I had to laugh – I came up with that term some time ago and it has been quite funny watching it be taken up and spread around.

The parliament erupts, but the laughter is quickly pulled up.

Milton Dick makes him reword the question and Bates is obviously ready:

Given Trump’s attacks on democracy and western institutions, and even threatening our allies and even the PBS, why would you invite him to Australia?

This is because Anthony Albanese said again yesterday there was an open invitation for Trump to visit and he had conversations with him where he had reiterated the invitation. Trump has not accepted.

Albanese:

I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. And Australia has a long standing relationship with the United States, it’s been an important ally since the Second World War. President Trump was elected by the American people last October.

We respect democratic outcomes in Australia. It’s something that I’m very proud of, that we have orderly transitions of power, and we had that between when Mr Morrison lost the election, there was an orderly transition of power. I have had two discussions with the President of the United States. Once after he was elected, but secondly, after his inauguration. Both of those conversations were some of that we had and it reflects the respect that Australia has shown with the United States as important allies.

The United States President will always be welcome in Australia. The United States President, I would expect, will attend the Quad meeting which will be hosted here either next year or the year after. This year’s Quad meeting is in India. The President of the United States has given me the courtesy of inviting me to visit the United States. I have returned the courtesy, as is normal practice. I will continue to engage in a respectful way – notwithstanding the fact that I have some different political views with different world leaders. But what I do is, I engage respectfully across-the-board, and I act in Australia’s national interest. And that is what people would expect of me. And I’ll continue to do that. I’ll continue to stand up for Australia’s national interest, including, of course, with issues such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and other things that are uniquely Australian assets. They say a lot about who we are. The PBS is something that was introduced, of course, by the Chifley government.

It is something that the Australian Labor Party is particularly proud, and I’m proud that we’ve strengthened the PBS by not just having the decrease from $42.50 down to $30, but now the further increase that we support down to $25 as well as 60-day scripts and other measures that we have put in place. Just like Medicare, it is something that I will always defend. Because I think that healthcare and accessibility is something that we should be proud of, if you compare our health system with the American health system. And what happens in this country is that people, no matter how wealthy you are or how poor you are, you have access to proper healthcare that’s something that we should be proud of, and that is something that I will always defend.

Jim Chalmers just said:

“Including the changes to the PRRT, which will see the offshore LNG industry pay more tax sooner as well as the efforts on tax compliance.”

Alas those changes will see less revenue being paid by gas companies.

The PRRT is meant to be paid by gas companies when making excess profits. Alas even though we have an LNG boom, no LNG export project has paid a cent of PRRT

Last year the government changed the PRRT include capping eligible deductions against revenue at 90% of the revenue. They did this after asking the gas industry if the changes were ok. The gas industry said “Oh my god, YES!!!”

IN the 2023-24 budget – before the changes were made, the government estimated that $10.8bn would be raised by PRRT from 2023-24 to 2026-27.

In this week’s budget (after the changes are in place) the government now expects only to raise $6.3bn over those 4 years.

No wonder the gas industry loved the changes.

The coming election is going to mean more people are emboldened to send messages like this.

Dan Tehan gets a question and he looks about as happy about it as your boomer uncle being made to acknowledge their non-binary nibling.

In Labor’s cruel hoax of a budget, 1.8 million new arrivals are predicted to live in Australia over a 5-year period. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that this number won’t go beyond two million?

Tehan is in a LOT of trouble in Wannon, where independent candidate Alex Dyson is coming uncomfortably close to Tehan in the polls. We are hearing that Tehan is making A LOT of phone calls all over the place to try and shore up support and stop people from talking about climate. So that sounds fun.

I’m also not sure how something can be a “cruel hoax” and then also condemn Australia to years of economic insecurity, because if it is a hoax and only a “budget for five weeks” then how is it also real and powerful enough to tank the economy for a decade? Do these people own a dictionary?

Tony Burke takes the question but before he gets there the LNP’s Cameron Caldwell gets booted under 94A.

The guarantee is simple that only a Labor Government can return immigration to sustainable levels. And the laughter is loudest from the man who went the other direction in the strongest possible way. (Peter Dutton) Because to get immigration back to sustainable level, we had to first make sure that we were restoring integrity to the system. Because let’s not forget, let’s not forget the way integrity had been taken from the system under those opposite.

Tehan pretends he has a point of order. He does not have a point of order. Much like he does not have a defensible position on wind farms (which he was for, but now is against because he thinks that will win him his seat)

Burke:

To deal with net overseas which the question asks about, you have to go to the components of net migration. The area with the biggest growth was international students. So the net overseas migration, the 31% reduction year on year is a there that this Government has taken action on the unlimited nature of how international student visas were in place.

Now, when it was actually put to the Parliament whether that should be fixed, those opposite, including the shadow minister who just asked the question, didn’t amend the bill to say – oh, maybe it should be a different number. They actually voted for student visas to be unlimited in Australia. Unlimited in Australia. That’s their position and then they want to get up and ask about what will happen with respect to net overseas migration.

There is a gap from a previous speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave, where he claimed a number as to how low he would get net overseas migration. He’s made a couple of announcements to it, but he’s actually still 220,000 places short. 220,000. If you reduced, if you reduced the student visa system to zero, you still would not fix that gap.

You still would not fix that gap. And it’s not surprising that those opposite had no idea about how to run a system that is sustainable with integrity. Because look at what was said with that with how they ran immigration.

A company whose owners were suspected through the ownership of another company of seeking to circumvent US sanctions against Iran.

…Those opposite ran a system in complete disrepair. Complete disrepair. The only visa they said that they would act on is to bring back known for cash visas where you qualify for a visa in Australia on the basis that you’ve got cash and that’s it.

Jim Chalmers has narrowed the election attack (at least for this part of the campaign)

This morning on radio and then on TV, the Shadow Treasurer made a stunningly stupid admission, Mr Speaker. He said if those opposite win the election, they will legislate to increase income taxes for every single Australian taxpayer.

Now, as far as we can tell Mr Speaker, this is unprecedented. This has never happened before that an alternative government has gone to the people and said – elect us and we will jack up income taxes for every single taxpayer. I can’t imagine they’re happy about this up the back Mr Speaker, and that’s why they’re pretending to read and they’re looking at their shoes once again.

Because this confirms beyond any doubt that if they win the election, Australians will earn less and keep less of what they earn. It makes it absolutely crystal clear that Australians will be worse off if those opposite win the election, Mr Speaker.

And it’s now not just us saying it – it’s the Shadow Treasurer saying it as well. And as a consequence, they would increase tax-to-GDP. They would increase average rates. They would give back no bracket creep and they would harm participation. Now, this will haunt them for every single day of this election campaign, because this renders anything else the Leader of the Opposition says tonight absolutely meaningless

Angus Taylor gets another go:

“Given families are hurting because of Labor’s cost-of-living crisis, what was the logic in delaying by 15 months the Prime Minister’s 70 cents a day tax cut?”

Anthony Albanese takes this one and is THRILLED to do so:

I really, really, really thank the Shadow Treasurer for that question because what I’m asked by the Shadow Treasurer is – why isn’t the policy which have – well, lower, further top-up, our tax cuts right for every taxpayer, all 14 million of them, next year and then the year after making a total with the top-up of $2,500 less tax being paid for average taxpayers, why haven’t you done something that they voted against sooner! (LAUGHTER)

Albanese:

That is what they have asked, Mr Speaker. (INTERJECTIONS) But that wouldn’t be quite so bad. (INTERJECTIONS) Because it’s not just why haven’t you done what we opposed sooner, he’s actually asked – why haven’t you done what we’re going to repeal and reverse sooner?! (LAUGHTER) Having stood up – having stood up… Having stood up now and declared this morning that he would absolutely impose higher taxes on every taxpayer, he then says, “Why didn’t you just do the reverse sooner?” It’s just extraordinary.

Once the Labor laughter dies down, Albanese continues:

They have voted against every measure of cost-of-living support. On Tuesday night, it wasn’t just the lower taxes that the Treasurer spoke about on Tuesday night, it was the cheaper medicines, we know they opposed that. It was the energy bill relief, we know that they opposed that, they opposed the cap on gas and coal prices. We know that they opposed the cuts of $3 billion for student debt and opposed the future cuts that we will put in place that will cut student debt by 20% leading to an average – an average – $5,500 benefit for 3 million Australians. They opposed that. $5,500 for 3 million Australians. We know that proposed the measures that were put in place that allowed 11 million Australians get access to their GP just with bulk-billing. We know that they actually supported tax every time people visited GP rather than that. We know that they have called the largest increase in rent assistance in 30 years – waste. All of the measures we have put in place.

Now, those opposite who have the hide to come in here and say, “Why don’t you do what we oppose sooner?”, it says all about the – the lack of logic in their team. No wonder they have come up with this rubbish

This man is a Rhode’s scholar and thinks he will be prime minister and yet somehow manages to display what an empty head looks like on the outside.

Peter Dutton wants to be part of that answer, as both our major parties fall into line behind America. How wonderful.

Dutton:

I think that was a pretty good answer and I wanted to support the Prime Minister on what I think is an issue of national significance and importance. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have rightly pointed out that we live in the most precarious period since the end of the Second World War and it’s based on intelligence and the advice of the best people in uniform and not just here in Australia, but in Europe and in other allies, intelligence networks as well. It is appropriate that we make this investment and I think the Prime Minister when he was the then-Leader of the Opposition, made a brave call in supporting the Government Then-‘s decision to go with the AUKUS nuclear propelled submarine. It’s a safe technology. It provides the stealth capacity that the Prime Minister pointed out. It gives us the best-in-class of the technology, and it allows us to project and to provide defences to our country in a very uncertain century. And I think to question that is not wise, not in our national interest, and I think it is important for the Australian public and for our allies to hear that there is and there always will remain the bipartisan position when it comes to the submarines as the first line of defence, it will underpin our national security for decades and decades to come.