2009/04/01 by M.F. Lyons, Thomas Khoshaba · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Australian History and Society #Commonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism #Economics #Federal jurisdiction #Federalism #Government (linguistics) #Industrial relations #Jurisdiction #Labor Movements and Unions #Law #Law and economics #Parliament #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Public administration #Referendum #State (computer science)
paper · doi:10.1177/0022185608101706
published in Journal of Industrial Relations 51(2), 173-194 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2009/04/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/23
Traditionally, industrial relations in Australia have been governed by a dual system of federal and State regulation. In recent decades there have been two attempts to create a single national system of industrial relations regulation. In 1973, the Whitlam (Australian Labor Party) government proposed two constitutional alteration referendum questions to give the federal parliament plenary law making powers over `prices' and `incomes', and consequently industrial relations. In 2005, the Howard (Liberal—National parties coalition) government used the existing constitutional law making powers of the federal parliament, the corporations power, to widen the coverage of the federal industrial relations system with the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) to capture about 85 percent of Australian employees. This article compares and contrasts these two efforts to create a national industrial relations system. The analysis shows that both efforts illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of federalism generally and suggests the political nature of industrial relations policy in Australia remain regardless of the regulatory jurisdiction.