You are right that the argument against WorkChoices is “essentially distributional rather than macroeconomic”. WorkChoices will have some positive macroeconomic and employment effects but none that cannot be achieved by other more distribution-neutral policy means (where taxpayers pay the cost of rehiring the jobless rather than the most vulnerable employed workers).

I believe some of the public hostility to WorkChoices stems from the fact that it was not foreshadowed in the 2004 election. It was sprung on voters. There is an issue of ‘legitimacy’ here (changing the rules in mid-stream without warning) that may be troubling people.