SUBJECT/S: David Feeney; Jobs Figures; Penalty rates; Worker Exploitation.
KRISTINA KENEALLY: We are joined here by the Shadow Employment Minister, a man named after the two great saints of Ireland, Brendan Patrick O’Connor – welcome to ‘To The Point’.
BRENDAN O’CONNOR, SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS: It’s good to be here.
KENEALLY: Terrific.
PETER VAN ONSELEN: I love it how you come to the studio when it’s Kristina as well. But when it was just me during the week last week, you’re hiding out at the CBD. But look –
KENEALLY: Well, you know –
VAN ONSELEN: Let’s talk about David Feeney. I know we’re going to talk about jobs, numbers and all of that. Isn’t this what happens when the politics of envy rebounds? Because Labor’s enjoyed a bit of a crack at Malcolm Turnbull and his wealth and all the rest of it, and then all of a sudden now David Feeney has now seen himself under a similar attack which I don’t like to see on either side quite frankly.
O’CONNOR: No I think the issue – Bill Shorten’s dealt with that. It was unacceptable. He’s corrected the record. He’s not the first politician to make that error, but it shouldn’t be made. And he’s suffering the consequences as a result of that failure to properly record his ownership of the house. Look I’m not so concerned about Malcolm’s wealth. I do think it does lead to us to really make the point that he seems to be out of touch with working class and middle class families and I think that’s a reasonable point to make. I mean, the Government likes to talk about Bill Shorten’s union past. We think that’s a good thing in understanding ordinary aspirations of people. I think we’ve got every right to raise on occasion, not in a vicious way, but on occasion, the decisions made by the Prime Minister, for example in relation to tax cuts for big business, says something about him. I think that’s more important than his personal wealth. But we know he’s one of the wealthiest politicians in the country and I think the public know that too.
VAN ONSELEN: And just on Feeney just to end, this will make it harder for him to fight the Greens. I mean, he was already under the pump in his seat in Melbourne in Batman. But now, with this on top of what has already happened, you’d have to think there’s a real chance of him losing the seat.
O’CONNOR: Look David’s a very good campaigner. I think this is clearly a mistake. Doesn’t help. But we think we’re doing well. I think in the end if we run a very good national campaign, and I think to date we are running a good campaign, I think David will do well. But we don’t take it for granted. It’s no doubt a challenge. The Greens are seeking to undermine Labor at any point. They are seeking to undermine us. The message we make very clearly to the Australian people: there are two choices. It’s either going to be Bill Shorten or Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister. And therefore we don’t want them to fall for the ideas that have been put forward by the Greens and we’ll see what happens.
KENEALLY: Brendan, the unemployment data came out today. The unemployment rate holds steady at 5.7 per cent. But full time jobs are down though, some 9,000. Part time employment up, some 20,000 jobs. Your reaction – not just to the rate but also what is happening to full and part time employment?
O’CONNOR: We come out every month and make comment at the ABS data. But I think you do have to look at the trend. The underemployment number in Australia is the highest it’s ever been – 1 million and 59,000 Australians according to the ABS are looking for more work and can’t find it. There was 18 million fewer hours worked which really does fit into what’s been happening, the trend which is we have part time jobs growing but it’s at the expense of 9,300 full time jobs this month. In fact, there’s been fewer full time jobs being created, and I think that’s why people are struggling because so many people can’t find enough work and that’s making it difficult for them in terms of cost of living pressures.
VAN ONSELEN: One of the things that the Government did in its Budget was basically move from the stick to the carrot in terms of its attempt to incentivise people to enter the workforce, particularly young people with some of its policy measures in the Budget. ACOSS came out and supported it, as did the various chambers in the business sense. What’s Labor’s view of it? Chris Bowen on the night of the Budget sounded like he was in favour of it, but Labor’s sort of had a bit of a rethink, is that right?
O’CONNOR: No, ACOSS had a rethink. They’ve come out and revised their position and said that they didn’t want to see existing vacancies being taken up by subsidised underpaid workers. I’ll just make the point that Michaelia Cash as Minister said that it was only going to be for existing vacancies originally. Now what that would’ve meant is that jobs that would’ve been filled by young people anyway, we were going to spend taxpayers’ money which effectively would’ve been a dead weight loss situation, they would’ve been filled anyway. What we wanted to see was additional opportunities in the labour market. So the only thing we welcome insofar as the Government is concerned in relation to this initiative was more money was being dedicated to young people, because unemployment is 12 per cent amongst young people in this country. Alarmingly high. But we don’t think the actual jobs initiative will provide sufficient training. Look a four-week supermarket internship is no replacement for a four year apprenticeship. We need to see additional jobs, not providing taxpayer’s money for existing vacancies. And that’s why we criticised the initiative. And of course we’ll be announcing some initiatives in relation to young people and finding work and getting into the labour market very soon.
KENEALLY: You mentioned there you wanted to see additional jobs in the economy. The ABS data this month says some 10,000 jobs have been added. Many economists would say that’s not even enough to keep pace with population growth. And you add to that the fact that there are part time jobs replacing full time jobs.
VAN ONSELEN: Don’t forget all those refugees that are taking jobs!
KENEALLY: We can get to that in a moment, those innumerate and illiterate refugees that are going to come take jobs. We can get to that in a moment. But if you’re elected, you’re going to face a daunting set of employment figures. Your first 100 days – what are the key things you’re going to do to try to arrest some of these trends?
O’CONNOR: Well I think the Government failed to take the opportunities that were being presented to them. We knew - Treasury would’ve been advising the Government that the dollar was going to fall, and it has fallen significantly. Now that means there are some challenges. But that also means that manufacturing and other sectors of our economy can take that opportunity to export goods and services. And we believe that at absolutely the wrong time the Government removed support for the car industry. Now it’s not just the 10,000 direct car maker jobs. It’s the tens of thousands, arguably 200,000 jobs in the automotive parts sectors of our economy. Small and medium enterprises that will suffer once the car maker leaves our shores. We think that was a devastating decision to make. To pull away support just at the time when the exchange rate was providing opportunities for manufacturing and ensuring that we can export in manufacturing.
VAN ONSELEN: Can I just ask a question on that, is that an egg that’s been scrambled that can’t be unscrambled? Or can Labor revisit something?
O’CONNOR: I think it’s very difficult when you goad Holden to leave as they did and Holden leaves, it’s very hard to restart that. But look there may be opportunities in the future. We know for example, I’m not making any announcement here, but I know that for example electric cars are going to continue to become a larger part of the car market. There may well be opportunities for future Governments and indeed for this country to explore this area.
VAN ONSELEN: Government assistance to help build an electric car industry in this country?
O’CONNOR: Well I think they’re the sort of things that should be examined. But I do think when you turn your back on an industry entirely it makes it harder to start again.
KENEALLY: You say it was the wrong time to get out of it, is that because we’re transitioning out of the mining boom? Is it because the dollar is weakening? In many ways those industry assistance packages were propping up industries that were not sustainable in the long run?
O’CONNOR: Kristina in most developed countries where they manufacture cars, there’s been government support. And the level of support we were providing to the car industry was not anywhere near what is provided in the United States.
VAN ONSELEN: And is the argument there Brendan O’Connor, is the argument that ok fine there’s government assistance, but because of the flow on impact of that it’s money well spent?
O’CONNOR: That’s right. You have to look at beyond the direct employees of the car making manufacturers and look at the automotive parts sector of our economy. And that’s not just in Adelaide and Melbourne, that’s right up the coast – Queensland, New South Wales, and the lot. And particularly at a time as you say, we’ve got an economy in transition. So jobs are being lost in construction and in mining generally. And we’re reducing opportunities in other areas of the labour market.
KENEALLY: Let me ask you about the Coalition’s announcement today targeting wages fraud, particularly highlighting the 7-Eleven situation. They’ve announced a 10-fold increase in fines, new money for the watch dog, new powers for the workplace watch dog. Surely Labor must welcome this?
O’CONNOR: Well why didn’t they do it in Government? I mean, they were the Government. Labor does support a response to what has been wide spread, intentional, systemic arguably underpayment of wages. We introduced a Private Members Bill that went to these issues, went to sham contracting, underpayment. We presented it because the Government wasn’t acting. They established a taskforce in August last year – nothing happened. And all that’s happened now is that they’ve made an announcement. Which we welcome. It hasn’t gone far enough, it doesn’t go into some areas, we’ll look at it closely. There should’ve been something in Government. I don’t know why they’re now putting it up as an election promise. This problem’s been around for a very long time. The 7-Eleven scandal has been with us for some time. Of course Labor would’ve been working with the Government on this issue but they chose to do nothing. Now we’re supposed to believe they’re serious about it in an election campaign to make an announcement. We’ll see. But we’ll be making further announcements about these issues. We’re already on the record in terms of our policies and the Private Member’s Bill, but we’ll go further on some of these issues.
KENEALLY: What about the idea of a migrant worker tax? Within the Fair Work Commission they’re saying that they’ll appoint former ACCC head Allan Fels to that position to head (inaudible)?
O’CONNOR: He’s an eminent Australian. He’s a well-respected person. He was sacked quite unreasonably I think as Chair of the panel that was established originally by 7-Eleven. Look Labor’s been talking to Allan about these issues. We’ve got high regard for his understanding of this issue. He was on the inside of 7-Eleven so he understands the intrinsic problems. So again, we have not problem working with Allan and certainly if elected he would be one person I would be talking to about how we implement some of these things.
VAN ONSELEN: Speaking of the Fair Commission, what about penalty rates? The Labor Party has talked really tough about any changes to penalty rates, but ultimately it’s the Commission’s decision whether they do it or not, unless the Party were to bring in legislation to crimp their ability to have that independence in the decision making. You can make submissions I know that, but it’s all kind of neither here nor there isn’t it, if you’re really serious about thinking penalty rates need to be entrenched as different between Saturday and Sunday and all the rest of it, then don’t you need to bring forth legislation to ensure that’s the case?
O’CONNOR: No, we think it would be irresponsible and reckless to suggest that you would enact penalty rates in that way. If for example we were to do that, and if that was the case and was in existence at the time that John Howard won the 2004 election, he could by a stroke of a pen repeal all penalty rates. Instead, what he did was as we know he introduced WorkChoices which was a mechanism that allowed penalty rates to be abolished at a workplace level. Now we abolished WorkChoices of course. We’re the party that repealed WorkChoices. We’re the party that defends penalty rates. And we’re the first Opposition to make a submission to defend them.
VAN ONSELEN: But there’s my question. If the Commission ignores Labor on that and decides to do the very thing that Labor has been urging them not to do, what do you do? Do you just say that you don’t like it? Or do you find a way to take action?
O’CONNOR: Look I understand the Commission as does Bill very, very well. I’ve worked as a practitioner. It’s been there since 1904. It’s been there to protect the interests of low paid workers. I am confident that if elected, as the Commonwealth of Australia, if we were to intervene at a time by the way when wage growth is at its lowest since 1998 – the idea that you would take real income out of the pockets of the lowest paid in this country, by making a decision on penalty rates adversely to their interests, I do not think will happen.
VAN ONSELEN: But then what was the point of attacking the Liberals on this? Because they just kept saying that it was up to the independence of the Commission.
KENALLY: Well did they really say that? There were Coalition MPs out there advocating –
VAN ONSELEN: There’s Labor candidates out there with a different view of border protection. These things happen.
O’CONNOR: I’m just waiting for Sky News to start asking the questions of the candidates standing next to Malcom Turnbull what they think about penalty rates the way in which they have been so keenly on –
VAN ONSELEN: Well they won’t let us talk to the candidates. I wanted to hear from Ewen Jones yesterday!
O’CONNOR: I noticed that. Malcom gave him a look and he had to scurry off! The point is I think Peter that we are the only party that genuinely defends working conditions. There are 61 members of the Liberal Party, members and candidates, that are on the record saying they either want to reduce or abolish penalty rates. Malcolm Turnbull said we live in a seven-day economy. Minister Cash has made it clear that she thinks job losses occur because of penalty rates. Some politicians, Senator McGrath from Queensland wants to abolish them entirely. Now they established the PC Commission - that recommends a cut. They tried to outsource their responsibility for that, but a recommendation has been put in by employers because in their heart of hearts they want to see the end or the reduction of penalty rates –
VAN ONSELEN: I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that. And I don’t disagree philosophically with where Labor sits or where the Government sits, but there’s no practical difference in a policy sense? It’s just shoved off to the Commission.
O’CONNOR: Why don’t they join us now and co-author the submission we have made into the Fair Work Commission to defend penalty rates? Why wouldn’t they join us then? They don’t have the same position.
KENEALLLY: You said that if you were elected and the Fair Work Commission has got to make this determination, you said that you would intervene. Are you suggesting you would make another submission from a position of Government? Or you would intervene in some other way?
O’CONNOR: That’s right. We would intervene to strengthen our position. As I say, yesterday the wage growth figures came out, and it’s the lowest wage growth since 1998. I mean at a time like this, when you’ve got a Government seeking to cut family payments, I would argue trying to cut penalty rates, there’s low wage growth. We have to defend –
KENEALLY: You seem to be somewhat confidant that the Fair Work Commission in this economy, in these economic conditions, is probably not going to change?
O’CONNOR: This institution, I’ve appeared before it many times before I was a parliamentarian. I understand its culture and its history. You go right back to the Harvester judgment. It’s always been there to make sure that there’s decent wage for people. Now we’re at a 75 year high insofar as inequality is concerned in this country. It’s only because of Labor because of universal healthcare, the minimum wage and other things that set us apart from America, the United States, which I think is a real problem - when you see a country that I’ve admired and seeing it hollow out the middle class wages in that country. Where people’s wages are falling in real terms. I don’t want to see that happen here. I believe Fair Work has always been a good institution and we’re the guardians of the Fair Work system and the Fair Work Commission, and that’s why I’m confident that we would do well if we make submissions as a Government.
VAN ONSELEN: Just one last one on this though. When you say you would intervene if they did something that was contra what Labor would like to see happen, but is that only a case of your original letter says ‘We object to X, Y and Z’ and then you’ll just write another letter and put the word ‘strenuously’ in front of it?
O’CONNOR: It’s not a letter. We obviously have the powers under the Act to intervene as the Commonwealth and we would make further submissions. And I do believe the weight of the Commonwealth intervening – if Malcolm Turnbull had defended penalty rates, I do believe that -
VAN ONSELEN: It has an impact.
O’CONNOR: It has a bearing because he’s Prime Minister of the country. But he won’t do that because his constituency want him to cut penalty rates.
VAN ONSELEN: Brendan O’Connor, we appreciate you joining us, live in the studio. Great to have you here. Thanks for your company
O’CONNOR: Thanks very much.
ENDS