Bill Shorten debates Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews

The following is a transcript of a debate between AWU National Secretary Bill Shorten and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Kevin Andrews on Melbourne’s 3AW on 30 June, 2005.

NEIL MITCHELL: You'll see it on television tonight, you'll see it in the newspapers tomorrow, we'll be crossing to the city through the morning, the unions have predicted a hundred thousand people in the streets protesting against the Government's changes to workplace laws. You'll see it all happen. And the question is why? I mean this will have a big impact on the city, it'll have a big impact on work going on around the town, but why is it happening, what is it all about?

OK, to get to the bottom of that we have on the line the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Kevin Andrews, good morning - ...

KEVIN ANDREWS: Good morning, Neil.

MITCHELL: ... and the Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, one of the people organising today's rally, Bill Shorten, good morning.

BILL SHORTEN: Good morning, Neil.

MITCHELL: Well, Bill Shorten first, in a couple of words what is Kevin Andrews doing wrong?

SHORTEN: The Federal Liberal Party have decided to use their Senate majority to effectively legislate to lower wages and create more insecure employment. We don't think the way to the future in Australia is to cut wages and make people worried about their job security.

MITCHELL: OK. Mr Andrews, will your laws lower wages and create less secure employment?

ANDREWS: No, they won't lower wages because the way in which wages are set will be, firstly, based on the minimum, which has been established by the Industrial Relations Commission this year; and, secondly, the new Fair Pay Commission will, over time, be able to increase that wage, not just at the very base or benchmark level but through the award classifications. So Bill's claim is simply wrong.

MITCHELL: Bill Shorten?

SHORTEN: The Minister's claim is simply cheeky. The problem is that over the last nine years the Howard Government's recommended increases to the minimum wage, which they haven't been successful on. The Industrial Relations Commission's handed something like a hundred and nine dollars out per week over the last nine years; the Howard Government wanted something like sixty-five dollars. The problem is they're now shutting down the Commission, they're paying 'em back for disagreeing with the Government, and the real problem therefore is that inflation will rise faster than any Howard Government group of stooges will award increases in wages.

MITCHELL: Howard Government group of stooges, Mr Andrews?
ANDREWS: This will be an independent body. I expect that there will be five members, one of which will be drawn from an employee and union background. It will work in an independent way and it will decide wage increases in the future. Again, this is misleading by Bill to say what he's saying.

MITCHELL: Mr Andrews, from your point of view why is it necessary? Why are these changes necessary?

ANDREWS: Well, we live in a very competitive world, we know that nobody owes us a living, we also know that where there is greater workplace flexibility there's high productivity and, indeed, there are better wage outcomes for the workers involved; so these changes are about trying to build upon the system we've got to ensure that Australians, not just now but in the future, have the jobs that they want.

MITCHELL: What's wrong with that, Bill Shorten?

SHORTEN: Oh listen, the Minister himself's not the worst bloke in the world; he sounds reasonable.

MITCHELL: Oh, he'll be glad to hear that.

ANDREWS: Thanks, Bill. [Laughs]

SHORTEN: That's right. But it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for you. But what I would say is--

MITCHELL: You're not going to vote for Mark Latham?

SHORTEN: Well, we can't; he's not there. The real problem here is that the vision that the Liberal Party have for Australia is a dumbed-down rice bowl economy, where they think the only way Australia can compete in the future is by creating more casual employment and by lowering wages and trying to take unions out of the picture because we're the ones who've generated real wage growth in Australia.

I just wish the Liberal Party would sit down, not abuse their control of the Senate, work with people and say, "Listen, the way ahead is to make sure that our kids can go to TAFE and can go to uni, a smarter economy".

We'll never be as cheap as 65 cents an hour as the Shanghai construction worker, so let's try and skip this idea that we can become the sort of white trash of Asia with a low-paid economy and instead go for the high road and not hide behind economic rationalist jargon.

MITCHELL: White trash of Asia, Mr Andrews?

ANDREWS: Oh look that's, you know, nice rhetoric from Bill, but it's not the reality. I mean the reality is that the wages will not fall below the benchmark established this year, that they will go up in future; I expect that they'd go up according to inflation. This is a sort of reactionary comment that you expect ...
MITCHELL: OK.

ANDREWS: ... from the unions at the moment.

MITCHELL: Mr Bill Shorten, is there-- do you accept that some change is necessary, that the unfair dismissal law, in particular, has been rorted, that the secret ballot is not a bad thing? Do you accept that some change is necessary here?

SHORTEN: Just what Kevin Andrews said is actually brand-new news, Neil. He's just said that he expects the Fair Pay Commission will award pay rises in line with inflation. That's a very interesting development and we might see if you are consistent to that view.

MITCHELL: All right. Will you stand by that, Mr Andrews?

ANDREWS: Well, the basis on which any increase that you'd expect in wages would be some reflection of the increase in inflation or the CPI.

MITCHELL: That wouldn't be in law, though, would it?

ANDREWS: Well, we are writing guidelines for the way in which the Fair Pay Commission will operate, we haven't finalised them at the moment, but--

MITCHELL: So is it possible their guidelines could say that any increase must be, minimally, in line-- at least in line with inflation?

ANDREWS: Well, that would be a natural sort of starting point to look at this.

MITCHELL: Mm. Well, Bill Shorten, are you happy with that?

SHORTEN: Well, that's interesting progress. I just wonder if he-- I guess he doesn't have to pay for his own petrol, it's gone up 20 cents a litre in the last year, now the Government-- I mean, the Government isn't quite sure--

MITCHELL: Yeah, yeah, but hang on. He has said that he'd expect them to go up in line with inflation, ...

SHORTEN: Yes.

MITCHELL: ... which undermines your argument a bit that you're all going to be screwed.

SHORTEN: Oh, I don't think he means it, but it's interesting.

MITCHELL: [Laughs]
SHORTEN: And it is an interesting development and that's why I want to hold him to it. I mean part of the trouble here, Neil, is we haven't even seen all the legislation. We know the Libs don't like unions because they don't tend to support them a lot of the time.

But this unfair dismissal epidemic, you know this crazy, magic number of a hundred employees, where if some of your listeners work for companies of less than a hundred members they can now be legally unfairly dismissed, but if they work for companies bigger than a hundred all of a sudden they've got rights. You know that's not an economic policy; that's pretending that black is the new white and white is the new black, ...

MITCHELL: Well, look--

SHORTEN: ... [indistinct]

MITCHELL: Unfair dismissal, Mr Andrews, what's your answer to that?

ANDREWS: Well, we believe it's been largely abused. I mean every time you speak to a group of employers you find people coming forward and saying, "What I had to do was effectively pay out some thousands of dollars just to make the problem go away". This system's only been in operation for a bit over a decade; we think it's bad policy.
We're going to retain unlawful dismissals. That is if you dismiss someone for discriminatory grounds, because they're pregnant, or got family responsibilities, or belong to a union, or their political views, that is unlawful and will remain unlawful.

MITCHELL: Is there anything negotiable here, Mr Andrews?

ANDREWS: Well, we've put forward The Pillars of Change, we're working on the detail, and I'm, you know, always-- my door is always open for people who want to come and talk to me about it. But I think the fact--

MITCHELL: What, even Bill Shorten?

ANDREWS: Certainly even Bill. But, you know, the fact that Bill says, you know, "We don't know what the details are, yet we're having this mass rally today", I think just shows, as I said at the outset, that this action is misplaced.

MITCHELL: Oh--

SHORTEN: Neil, I think that's a little bit of twisting. We do know The Pillars of Change. We do know that they think that somehow by being able to unfairly dismiss people, less than a hundred, that's a good thing. We do know that they're not happy with the minimum wage moving as fast as it has. We do know they don't like the idea of unions being able to collectively bargain. We do know they are having a love affair with the individual contract.
You know the idea of a 19 year-old shop assistant negotiating with the chief HR manager of Coles Myer about whether to work on weekends or get an individual contract, that's nonsense.
My only fear, Neil, is that these Pillars of Change are based upon foundations of sand.
Where's the fire that they're putting out? The Government says on one hand they have historic low, historic low levels of industrial disputation. The case for change isn't made and I just wish that the Senate, the Liberal-controlled Senate in Canberra, would butt out of the workplace.
As for this unfair dismissal epidemic you know, which apparently assails Kevin Andrews everywhere he goes, there were only 6000 applications across the whole of Australia in a workforce of 8.7 million people. I mean if that's an epidemic, you know, I don't know what the sight of a mouse would do to these guys.

MITCHELL: Oh yeah. But I get many, many calls from small businesses who will just settle and cop it rather than fight it, and they're getting screwed over, no question.

SHORTEN: Well, I think the issue there is that you'll find that Federal taxes and charges also screw over small business. Did you know that--

MITCHELL: Oh true. But that's got nothing to do with it. I mean we're talking about unfair dismissal ...

SHORTEN: Oh ...

MITCHELL: ... and workers ...

SHORTEN: ... [indistinct]

MITCHELL: ... who are screwing the boss.

SHORTEN: Neil, you know, you think for the long term. Isn't a bit of a shame. These guys have got a Senate majority - maybe I didn't vote for 'em but I accept they've got a Senate majority - why aren't they talking about the real issues of Australia's future?

MITCHELL: OK. What happens now? This rally, Bill Shorten, you're expecting a hundred-- well, you're hoping for a hundred thousand, what happens next?

SHORTEN: Well, I think it's going to go on every day for the next two and a half years. The message which the AWU--

MITCHELL: But you're not going have rallies in the city every day.

SHORTEN: Well, no. But the campaign in the community is pretty important. I mean, the thing is--

MITCHELL: Strikes?

SHORTEN: Well, I think the thing is we've got to educate people about-- you see the Liberal-controlled Senate putting their hand in people's wallet. Do you really believe an individual, if forced onto an individual contract, is going to say, "Oh, well, I won't work weekends"? 'Cause the problem then is, well, also they won't do unpaid overtime.

There's a whole notion-- This is the fundamental issue. Why is it the Government resents unions who stand up on the side of shorter hours or secure employment? Why? The whole notion of fairness is going out the window here, the pendulum's swinging too far.

MITCHELL: All right.
Mr Andrews, an answer to that?

ANDREWS: Well, the unions will still have a place in the system. People, workers, will be entitled to be represented by a union whether they're on a collective agreement or an individual agreement. I mean, what the unions have to ask themselves is why are people leaving unions in their droves? Why are we down to, what, 1.8 million unionists in Australia? We've got more people who are self-employed now.

MITCHELL: Mr Andrews, where do you think it's going? You know the churches seem to be lining up against you.

ANDREWS: Oh, look, you can always find someone to line up against you, Neil; that's the reality of a democracy.

MITCHELL: Oh yeah. But God versus John Howard could be a big fight.

ANDREWS: [Laughs]

Look, I think church people, like all other Australians, will make their decisions, and what they'll make their decision on is the outcome of this, if it works. I mean this is what the unions said back in 1996: since then we've had 1.6 million extra jobs and a 14% increase in real wages. We've heard this sort of protest before. I think Australians will wait and they'll make a decision based on whether this works or not. And we believe it will.

MITCHELL: Gentlemen, thank you for speaking to us. I wonder if we could speak again irregularly as this issue develops.
Would that be OK, Mr Andrews?

ANDREWS: Pleasure, Neil.

MITCHELL: And Bill Shorten?

SHORTEN: Absolutely, Neil.

MITCHELL: [Laughs]

SHORTEN: And the point which you've got to make though is - these guys really take the cake - they claim credit for 14% increase in real wages, who do they think has been doing it? It's been the unions. But now what has changed from the last nine years is--

MITCHELL: There have been a few employers involved in that too, and a few small businesspeople.

SHORTEN: Oh, I hate to break--

MITCHELL: It's not just the unions who are doing it.

SHORTEN: I hate to break it to you Neil: I've never been outbid in a wages claim by an employer. More importantly, what has changed--

MITCHELL: Yeah, but hang-- Ooh, hang on. We're both on-- We're all on the same side here; we want Australia to prosper economically. And it's not just union people doing it; it is also the entrepreneurs, those risking their money and their house, it's the small businessmen. That's the frustrating thing: it's everybody.

SHORTEN: Well, Neil, everyone has a role to play. What I don't understand, therefore, is for the first time in nine years it will be different because the Liberals now control the Senate. Why is it they've got a bee in their bonnet about unions? And I just think it's all politics and got bugger all to do with the real world.

MITCHELL: Thank you very much to both of you. We will speak regularly as this issue develops. I agree with Bill Shorten it's there for a couple of years at least.
And the rally kicks off soon in the city. Bill Shorten has to go off and address it. We'll hear what he's got to say.

And we'll speak regularly to Kevin Andrews and Bill Shorten, the two men, really, at the top of this dispute.