David Pocock has confirmed he would sink Labor's sweeping industrial relations package as it stands if asked to vote today, but says wiping the ACT's public housing debt will not be part of negotiations.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Labor is scrambling to persuade an unconvinced crossbench to approve its omnibus bill, and looks set to extend a hectic final parliamentary sitting fortnight of 2022.
It needs the support of the Greens and one other senator in the upper house, leaving the ACT independent as a likely kingmaker.
The government is so far resisting calls to split the bill, allowing its less contentious elements - including more transparency around wages, flexible working hours - to pass before Christmas.
Senator Pocock, who has accused Labor of rushing the bill, refused to be drawn on whether it would meet that deadline, saying he would prioritise getting the bill right over speed.
He has consistently called for public housing debt to be wiped in the ACT, but insisted that would not be a prerequisite for supporting the bill.
"This IR bill is so big and far-reaching that I'm certainly not horse trading on it. I want to get this right," he told reporters on Tuesday morning.
"It affects too many Australians, too many workers, too many small businesses. My priority has been working through the details, consulting, ensuring that we get the details right."
Senator Pocock also raised concerns a frenetic final sitting fortnight, in which the government is attempting to cram through a large agenda, could see the territory rights bill caught in a "logjam".
'Hand-on-heart'
Speaking to ABC radio earlier on Tuesday morning, Senator Pocock warned there was still "so much more to work through" before coming on board.
"At the moment, I couldn't, hand-on-heart, vote for the whole thing. This is a massive omnibus bill. I think there's 23 different things that [it] is seeking to do," he said.
"So there's a lot of moving parts ... There is a lot of anxiety amongst local businesses."
Business groups are particularly angered by proposed changes to the "single-interest" streams of multi-employer bargaining, which would enable workers in the same industry and similar locations to negotiate collectively.
And with bureaucrats to testify on the bill's impact to a Senate inquiry on Tuesday, Senator Pocock accused Labor of attempting to cram through the legislation while the process was still unfolding.
"There's absolutely a need to get wages moving. That is urgent," he said.
The Canberra Business Chamber on Monday published a survey, suggesting 85 per cent of businesses in the territory were worried about the legislation.
Chamber chief executive officer Graham Catt said three quarters reported they had either no or a "limited" understanding of the bill and this showed there had been no "appropriate process of consultation".
"[It] reflects the haste with which the government has sought to push this legislation though the parliament," he said.
Labor has made concessions on the single-stream changes, exempting businesses with fewer than 15 employers.
'No idea'
But Independent senator Jacqui Lambie, who said she was happy with "90 per cent of the bill", warned the rules remained a sticking point for many smaller businesses.
"What is going to happen with small business? We are really, really concerned," she said.
"They just started to get back on their feet after going through two years of COVID. It has been really, really difficult for them."
Senator Lambie said her discussions with small businesses bolstered claims consultation had been rushed.
"I would like to get around a lot more businesses speak to them. They had no idea what was going on," she said.
Senator Pocock's comments continued a hardening of his rhetoric over the past few days, after he warned on Monday evening the plans needed to be altered to accommodate some business concerns.
"I appreciate the argument put forward by the ACTU and others that your rights at work should not be determined by the size of your employer," he said.
"The balance of evidence provided to me suggests that multi-employer bargaining will be too big an impost on smaller businesses, and therefore the threshold for inclusion in the non-voluntary streams needs to be higher."