THE HON BRENDAN O’CONNOR MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND
WORKPLACE RELATIONS
MEMBER FOR GORTON
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP
SYDNEY
WEDNESDAY, 5 AUGUST 2015
SUBJECT/S: The Productivity Commission Draft Report into Workplace
Relations; Parliamentary Entitlements Reform.
BRENDAN O’CONNOR, SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND
WORKPLACE RELATIONS: As everyone knows, yesterday the Productivity
Commission handed down its draft report into workplace relations laws in this
country. The first thing I want to say in relation to that, there is a considerable body
of work that is to be properly examined. I think it is important to note, before I get
onto the more controversial parts of the Commission's draft report, is that the
Commission has made clear that the current workplace laws are not fundamentally
broken. They certainly seem to embrace collective bargaining, the national
employment standards and the awards system. They support the role of the Fair
Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission in the main. For that reason, I
think Labor would support in principle, in broad terms, those reflections by the
Commission and we just want to know whether Tony Abbott, the Minister for
Employment Senator Abetz agrees with the Commission that the current
arrangements are indeed fundamentally correct.
Labor has always argued that since 1993, collective bargaining has been a success
story, except for the ugly interruption of WorkChoices for two years. For 20 of those
22 years we have seen the collective bargaining system in place and at the same
time we have seen remarkable economic success for this nation. The Commission
also found there was no need to significantly change the unfair dismissal provisions,
although we are concerned about their reflections on compensation and we are
concerned about increasing costs, given the small proportion of people that take
such matters all the way to the commission, or to a court. We would think that might
impede people with a genuine case of being unfairly dismissed. We say there are
concerns there.
I think it is important for us to also comment on the proposals to change the Fair
Work Commission. We would accept that we should consider the way in which the
Commissioners do their job, whether there is sufficient performance indicators for
Commissioners. We are open to examine that proposition. We are also open to
examine whether in fact there is a need for better guidance for Commissioners to
have consistent decisions. As for tenure, to remove tenure for Commissioners and
reduce their appointments to 5-year terms, we would be concerned that may leave
vulnerable a Commission to the Government of the day. We’re concerned that if you
remove tenure for independent statutory officers like Commissioners, it would allow
Governments or Ministers to influence the way in which they did their work. We
would be concerned about abolition of tenure.
As for dividing the Fair Work Commission into two parts, again it may well be a
sincerely put view by the Commission that it is the best way to operate, examining
the architecture as proposed but in the hands of this Government, we would be
concerned that the Minimum Standards Division as proposed would allow for the
Minister for Employment to appoint officers and sideline the President on such
important matters, as penalty rates and the minimum wage. We would be concerned,
given that the President currently forms the full bench on such important matters, it
would allow the Government to find someone who is more ideologically akin to both
the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and that would be of concern to
Labor.
There are things to note that in relation to this very significant report, that in the
broad Labor can support but we are very troubled about a number of issues. We are
very troubled that the Government has set up the parameters of this report so it
would find a way to cut penalty rates in such a drastic fashion. To cut penalty rates in
the manner that has been recommended for retail workers and hospitality workers
would see almost a 40 per cent cut to their working pay on a Sunday. The notion that
we now have a 7-day week and the Monday to Friday week is now gone is of course
not true. People do not have barbecues on Wednesday afternoons, they don't prefer
to have their weddings on Tuesday morning, they like to have them on the weekend.
People go to the footy in the evening or they go to the footy on the weekend.
The fact is, there is still a very strong support for the weekend and when people have
to work, and indeed they do have to work, whether they are essential workers or
hospitality workers, they should be rewarded sufficiently. We say the Government
should allow the independent umpire to make decisions around penalty rates. What
we don't want to see is a Government use this report to attack the low paid in this
country, to attack many, many parents who have to give up their weekends to work
in these sectors of our economy who would be badly affected. These workers are on
$30,000, $40,000 a year. Such a cut to their pay on Sunday without any
compensation, without anyway reasonable approach, would really damage them. We
think that there is good reason why these penalty rates are in place and it is
incumbent on those who wish to make changes, to argue their point in the
Commission. That Commission has been there for over a century and it is for them
to make those decisions, not the Government and with respect, not the Productivity
Commission.
Insofar as the enterprise contract is concerned, we are concerned that that would be
a mechanism to undermine the collective bargaining arrangements. It would
effectively be enterprise bargaining without the bargaining. You cannot suggest that
prospective employees have any leverage in their workplace, other than to take or
leave an offer by their employer. In the hands of this Government, we would be very
concerned that that would be used as a vehicle to undermine existing employment
conditions, indeed lead to a race to the bottom, which both Tony Abbott and Senator
Abetz both support, as supporters of WorkChoices. This would be very significant
elements of the former WorkChoices legislation and we would be very concerned if
this Government sought to support that proposition. We therefore need the Prime
Minister and the Minister for Employment to rule out today, whether they one, accept
the drastic cut to penalty rates and they want to see that done. And two, rule out
using the so-called enterprise contract to undermine employment conditions in
workplaces across Australia.
Happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: The Prime Minister's already said that he wouldn't do anything in this
term that departed in any significant way from his IR policy at the last election.
Wouldn't that mean that any changes that he makes, he has to take to an election,
isn't that reasonable?
O’CONNOR: It would be reasonable if we would believe him. WorkChoices wasn't
mentioned once by the former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard, before it was
enacted after the election. There was no talk of WorkChoices whatsoever in the
2004 election at all. Not one word about those things. After the election, the Liberal
Government that included Tony Abbott as a Cabinet Minister, then set about
radicalising our industrial relations landscape with anti-work legislation. Our concern
is twofold, one, how can we trust this Prime Minister when he has broken so many
promises already this term, and given what we know about his views on industrial
relations. Two of course he might use weasel words today, but we believe in his
heart of hearts, he wants to see a return to the more radical elements of legislation
introduced by a former Liberal Government. The best way for him to ensure people
have some confidence in his views is if he rules out unequivocally that he will
support such a proposition.
JOURNALIST: The word from within Cabinet though is that Tony Abbott was one of
the few Cabinet Ministers who actually actively argued against WorkChoices and he
was one of the moderating voices. Doesn’t that indicate that perhaps he isn’t inclined
to go in that direction?
O’CONNOR: I think that’s just another myth that needs to be demythologised. The
fact is, Tony Abbot has publicly supported WorkChoices. He talked about it being
good for jobs and good for workers. He said he’d rather not use the name again. He
said it was dead, buried and cremated. Clearly from this report it has just been
sedated and the Government wants to revive some significant elements of it. That
should be of concern to Australian workers.
We’re willing to have a conversation with employers, unions, workers about any
changes. But I don’t think it should be just one way. We need to look at whether
we’ve got the balance of work and family right. We need to make sure there is
significant security of employment for people at a time when there is growing
concerns around casualisation. I think there are issues on both sides of this. We do
want to get the balance right. We want to make sure businesses prosper but the
focus should be on investment in education and training, and infrastructure. Of
course increasing skills in our workplaces will lead to productivity. Cutting conditions
of employment does not improve the nations productivity, it just shifts some of the
capital from labour to profits. What we should be about is improving our workplaces,
our output through increasing skills. We are a high wage, and should remain a high
wage, high skilled economy. We need to make sure we’ve got the skills for the 21st
century, not focussing on cutting low paid workers wages.
This myth that everyone that works on a weekend is a student that lives at home,
needs to be busted. There are parents with children who are on low pay, who
struggle. Who give up their weekends because the other parent who works during
the week is now looking after the kids. This would be a terrible blow to them, to cut
such an amount from their income. We need the Government to guarantee the low
paid in this country, that they’ll be treated fairly.
We’d also say that this notion of having two tiers in workplace relations laws is
intrinsically unfair. To say you can deny a retail worker a penalty but provide it to
another worker is very unfair. If it was to be surrendered or taken from these low paid
workers, it wouldn’t be long before they would be back to take it off the rest. The
Government can actually guarantee that they are not going down this path by ruling
out some of these more controversial and concerning areas of the report. As I
say, there are some elements of this report, that Labor supports in the broad. They
have confirmed that the system in place that is based on collective bargaining is a
good, effective and successful system. We also need to hear from Tony Abbott and
Minister Abetz, do they support the Commission’s view that collective bargaining is
the strongest way to ensure fairness and economic growth in this nation because
they’ve been silent on that. They say it’s their report, this report of the Commission.
They should be confirming or otherwise, do they support that the current system is
fundamentally correct? If they do, then they should be saying that too.
JOURNALIST: The Commission seems to think that community attitudes to penalty
rates are changing. Would you concede that there are changing perceptions or
attitudes toward the sanctity if you like of [inaudible] compared to 20-30 years ago.
O’CONNOR: I think there has been more people working on the weekends than was
the case perhaps 50 years ago. My father was a factory worker, he worked on
weekends, 30 years ago, I can recall that.
People work on weekends to get extra money to make ends meet. It's true to say
that increasingly more people have worked on those weekends, but it's not that
they've chosen those days over others. There might be on occasion a coincidence
about your preferred day being the Saturday and you receive a penalty. But in the
main, most people, particularly those with families and family responsibilities, it's a
sacrifice. It's a sacrifice to give up a Saturday or Sunday. But if there are changes,
and there are changes in the community around these matters, it’s best to be
determined by the Commission. We’re not saying these matters shouldn't be
examined. We're just saying that the experts should deal with it. Those who've dealt
with it over the years and have made changes to conditions of employment based on
submissions by employers relying on evidence, not myth. Relying on empirical
evidence about those changes if they do exist and what do you then decide given
the competing interests of the parties who are making submissions. So that's where
it should occur. It shouldn’t be made by Government, by edict. It shouldn't be based
on the prejudice of a Minister or Prime Minister about a view about cutting low paid
workers and that's our concern in relation to the Government's response. The
Government can clear that up by just ruling out unilateral changes to penalty rates
for low paid workers. And ruling out the use of enterprise contracts which would be
an enterprise bargaining situation without the bargain. That's fundamentally the
problem with that proposition. Again, we're happy to talk to other interested parties
about the draft report. I notice that they've got a series of hearings scheduled. None
of which I think are on the weekend, by the way. But we'll certainly participate in the
rest of the process that the Productivity Commission is undertaking. But we'll also be
talking to workers and employers about their views in relation to these matters.
JOURNALIST: Just on Tony Burke spending $8000 on family flights to Uluru some
years back. Is that a reasonable use do you think of taxpayers' money?
O'CONNOR: Look I'm not going to reflect on Members in relation to particular
matters. I'll say this about Members generally. Everybody I know that's come into
politics has not gone into it for perks of office. Now it's fair to say that the reason why
we're having this discussion is because one particular Member thought it was ok to
get into a helicopter for a political fundraiser and then did not believe she had made
an error of judgement and did not believe she had broken rules.
The reality is most Members spend months and months away from their families.
Yes, we're volunteers and I don't expect people to feel sorry for us. But let's be real
here. There are occasions in which you might get an entitlement to be with your
family when you're working. They are very rare indeed. So in the context of these
things - I think the public understand the difference between an outrageous abuse of
taxpayers' money and a decent balance in providing some capacity for Members
who spend six months away from their families and their children, to be able to catch
up from time to time whilst still doing their work. And so I think people should
consider these types of things in that context. But nobody can suggest that the
conduct of the former Speaker sits anywhere near that. This was an outrageous
abuse of taxpayers' money. The fact that she didn't even understand that she'd
made an error. The fact that she refused to apologise until it was dragged out of her
really said something about her lack of understanding and empathy and concern that
the public had about the use of taxpayers’ money. But I don’t think any other
member I’ve heard mentioned so far in recent times in relation to these matters you
can possibly say fits within the realm of that sort of conduct.
JOURNALIST: Do you really think in the court of public opinion that this is going to
fly? That $12,000 was spent on this trip to Uluru. It may not be as great a largess as
we saw with the Speaker, but surely in the court of public opinion this doesn’t pass
the infamous sniff test?
O’CONNOR: As I say, there are small capacities enshrined in current arrangements
that allow for Ministers and Members of Parliament on occasion to catch up with
family. When Members of Parliament, particularly Minister and Shadow Ministers,
rise from Parliament they don’t go home often. Or if they do go home, they’re straight
out again and they’re working around the nation.
Now, there is a small capacity to, I guess, recognise this problem and I think the
public do understand that given that Members are so often away that there should be
some capacity for them to meet up.
I’m not trying to make – as I say, we’re volunteers. I’m not complaining. If people
want to make changes to arrangements, that’s fine. I didn’t enter politics for these
matters. I had no interest or even understanding of what entitlements or what was
provided to politicians. That was not my interest when I entered politics. It was to do
things for this nation to be involved in big policy debates that will change the
direction of this nation for the better. That’s my passion and interest and I’m sure
that’s the case for most members on both sides of the divide. That we go into this for
the right reasons and there is no real attempt to be trying to somehow benefit oneself
through the system.
But people should also understand that in doing that, there’s times where there is a
great deprivation insofar as being able to be with one’s family. And so I think when
people balance those issues up with what is being reported I think you will find that
people will be quite understanding.
But I think most importantly we’re having this discussion because of the conduct of
one Member and I think quite rightly the public were not at all sympathetic to the
conduct of that member.
JOURNALIST: We do have reports that Tony Burke actually had to pay back 15
times for expenses. Senator Abetz said this calls into question his role as the “chief
spear thrower” as he puts it. Do you think that’s a legitimate question for the public to
ask, the fact that he has had to pay back on multiple occasions for these O’CONNOR: As I say, I’m not aware of the details of matters. Tony Burke is a very
good colleague, a friend, and a very capable Minister and now Shadow Minister. And
he has done the right thing in holding this Government to account, taking up the
issues with the Speaker who was clearly biased in her role as Speaker.
It doesn’t surprise me that the Government is now seeking to attack the Opposition,
because in particular Tony Abbott has had to tell his friend, the former Speaker, that
she did the wrong thing. I don’t believe she’s accepted that, but the fact it doesn’t
surprise me now that the Government wants to turn its attack on the Opposition.
They should really focus on the future of this nation, what is needed. What is needed
is jobs. What is needed is a commitment to build submarines in Australia. What is
needed is a guarantee to build frigates in Victoria so we wouldn’t be losing so many
workers there not just to save Christopher Pyne’s seat in South Australia but look
after shipbuilding industry generally. That’s what most people care about in this
country but again I’m not surprised the Government is seeking to attack the
Opposition and of course attack a colleague – that doesn’t surprise me at all. But in
the end I think we know why we’re having this conversation and we’re having this
conversation because the Prime Minster took three weeks to know or to accept what
the Australian public recognised almost immediately that a person that transgressed
the rules, had acted indulgently and had to go. So that’s what’s happened.
JOURNALIST: Is this pretty common place though in terms of parliamentarians
using these provisions to take their families along for trips? I mean I’m sure no-one is
doubting the stresses on family life but I suppose note everyone has the capacity to
do something similar. Have you done it yourself?
O’CONNOR: Yes I have and it’s on the public record and it’s tabled in the Parliament
every six months you know. So every person, every member’s conduct is tabled
every six months in the Parliament in detail, you just have to pick up the book – as
you should be able to – and go through all of it and that’s what people should do.
They should examine it and if there are things people have concerns about then they
can ask those questions that’s why it’s there. But as I say, I don’t believe that people
have done – I don’t believe that we’d be having this conversation if it wasn’t of
course because of the conduct of one member in particular.
Thanks very much.
ENDS