SUBJECT: 2013 Party priorities, under employment and anti-discrimination laws
Steve Austin:
Inside Canberra with two Federal MP's. This morning they are Bernie Ripoll. Bernie is the Federal Labor for Oxley. Currently in Melbourne I think Bernie. Don't tell me you're holidaying in the rainy city are you?
Bernie Ripoll:
No, not at all. I've got meetings down here all day today.
Austin:
That's your excuse…
Ripoll:
Good morning to you and great to be back on air and g'day to your listeners.
Austin:
Happy New Year to you.
Ripoll:
Thanks very much.
Austin:
Steve Ciobo, Federal Liberal Member for Moncrieff. Steve Ciobo, happy New Year to you.
Ciobo:
Likewise to you Steve and Bernie, good morning.
Austin:
Did you go away?
Ciobo:
I did, mate. I went up to Cairns and down to Sydney and stayed on the Gold Coast of course because it's frankly hard…
Austin:
You live in the holiday zone.
Ciobo:
It's hard to find anywhere better where you'd rather be over the summer holidays than the Gold Coast.
Austin:
Fair enough. And so, is there like a family tradition for the Ciobo family for the Christmas holiday period.
Ciobo:
I think we're pretty normal. I think like most families. This year was the chance to spend with my parents and so that's why we went up to Cairns and my folks (inaudible). I'm a country boy, born and bred Steve. I grew up in Mareeba, west of Cairns and returned to…
Austin:
Not old Mareeba tobacco farming stock are you?
Ciobo:
Not tobacco farming Scott, no. That would very un-PC. But, no, we're back up there for enjoying some of the far North's warmth in many ways.
Austin:
Well, up in Mareeba that's about two or three degrees cooler than it is in the Coast, so that's probably a good move.
Ciobo:
The humidity up there's a bit better too.
Austin:
Bernie Ripoll, is there a tradition that happens in the Ripoll family at the Christmas holiday period.
Ripoll:
There certainly is. It's a long held one. We go camping, we either go bush or we go beach and this year we went bush. We went to Jimna State Forest up near Kilcoy. Up to Sandy Creek. A lovely part of the world.
Austin:
What was it like?
Ripoll:
Oh it's fabulous. Absolutely lovely. And, not what everybody would call relaxing because I think we went with about eight families, all friends and it's a lot of kids…
Austin:
Crikey.
Ripoll:
Yeah, that's a lot of kids when you add them all up, running around a campfire at night, but a lot of fun and we had a really great time. So, something we do every Christmas.
Austin:
You're a layered man. A lot more interesting than I first realised Bernie Ripoll.
Ripoll:
Well, we all are you know.
Austin:
That's probably true. Are you also a cyclist Bernie? A serious cyclist?
Ripoll:
I suppose I would say I'm serious. I try to get out there as often as I can and certainly over the Christmas break there's an opportunity to get on the bike. Not every day, but almost. It's a nice pastime, a great hobby early in the morning.
Austin:
I was going to ask you about Lance Armstrong and whether you've been a big follower of his cycling career. A number of cyclists I speak with are very mute, or muted in their criticism of Lance Armstrong's apparent admissions.
Ripoll:
Yeah, look I have followed his career for a long time and like most cyclists we were all in awe of his ability and capability and winning seven Tour de Frances in a row was something that was probably impossible and now we know it was and like everyone else I just feel really weird about Lance because it just meant so much to a lot of people. To tell you the truth right now I'm sick and tired of him. Sick and tired of his name. I don't really care if he admits it or not. We all know he cheated and so, who cares? The sooner people stop putting him on the front page and giving him a pedestal I think the better and let the world deal with him as they see fit.
Austin:
That will be a couple of days before that happens. I want to ask you about the rewriting or the, or the consolidating of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bills shortly, but I want to give both the opportunity, unannounced to say, look, what's on the agenda for you personally or your side of politics for this year 2013. Steve Ciobo, can I come to you first of all?
Ciobo:
Sure.
Austin:
What's on your agenda, or the Liberal Party's agenda for this year? How do you see it playing out? What's important to your party?
Ciobo:
Steve, I know across the community, people are excited at the prospect of there being a Federal election this year.
Austin:
You don't normally hear 'excitement' and 'Federal Election' in the same sentence.
Ciobo:
(inaudible) they're racing outside to the letterboxes to collect their mail so that's obviously going to loom large in the horizon. Whether it's sooner or later, I guess we'll find out. Look, short term, my focus is on the productivity agenda. Tony appointed me towards the end of last year as Chairman of the Coalition's Productivity Priorities Working Group. So my focus, short term, is going to be on developing a comprehensive plan of action of what we can do to boost Australia's productivity should we be fortunate enough to win the next election. More broadly, for me on the Gold Coast is a number of challenges our city continues to face. You know, we've got higher than national levels of unemployment. We've got a construction industry and a tourism industry that's still really struggling and so, it's going to be developing policy and providing feedback in to policy developments that when we go to the election we actually have plans in place to help boost those industries that have been struggling for so long under this Government that frankly, this Government's turned their back on.
Austin:
Bernie Ripoll, what's on your agenda for this year and your side of politics as well Bernie?
Ripoll:
Well, on two fronts, both from a Government and, let's say, personal side, but personal work and that is… we've got a really important task ahead of us with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's an enormous undertaking, but something this country has to do and anyone out there who's ever dealt with somebody who has a disability can understand just what is required and the work that needs to be done, but I agree with Steve. I think that productivity is a really important issue and I've been looking at this because I figure we've always got to continue to be more productive, because that's how we stay ahead of the rest of the world and our competitors. Even to my surprise, we've actually done better in the last couple of years than I had expected and Australia's actually doing reasonably well. I wouldn't go too far, but we're doing well in this area. We can always improve. It's certainly on our agenda and it continues to be. Because productivity of course is linked to jobs and jobs growth and it's linked to people's hip pocket about how families do. On a more personal note, and it's something that Government's also committed to is innovation. I just think that in Australia we've got this general that we're great entrepreneurs and great innovators, but the statistics would tell us something different. The real innovators are people in the United States, people in Israel, people in other countries that are way ahead of us. When it comes to the rankings, the table of rankings, we're very low on that scale and I think there's more that this Government, the Labor Government could do and I know that we are committed to it and that we'll be releasing policy in the very close future. But it's something that I'm personally committed to and I think it's a way to really create jobs and lift that productivity as well.
Austin:
A question to both of you, another one without notice. The unemployment figures aren't too bad in Australia but the under-employment figures are really worrying. They're very high. They had a big jump the last quarter. They're nearly around 10.5 per cent I think. I spoke with Morgan research and they've got data going back to 1948 and they think this is what's leading to this strange atmosphere in Australia where the economy is doing well, generally, but people's lived experience is quite tight, is very tough and when you have a look at the under-employment figures people want more work but can't get more work so might a very small amount or employed or paid hours, but nowhere near enough. Have you guys, do you get much feedback through your electorate office about under-employment? Bernie, I'll come to you fist if I can.
Ripoll:
Sure. Look, to be honest with you, not really. But that doesn't mean it's not a serious issue and that doesn't mean it's not something that is out there in the world to deal with. Look, I've looked at those figures and you're right Steve, there is an issue with under-employment that indicates, probably, a reflection of economic times where people say it's a little bit too tough and maybe I can't get that extra job or can't get a job or more work and so a lot of people have removed themselves from participating, from looking for work and I think that's where we have a responsibility, all of us, to try and encourage people back in to the workforce. You can do that through a whole range of policies, and that's what we've been doing. In fact, we've been criticised for some of those policies about encouraging people back in to work. We don't want people sitting at home giving up. We want people out there looking for jobs. There are jobs and you're right, as you said, the unemployment numbers are actually reasonable, but it would be great if we could get more people to participate, even if that meant in the end that it lifted slightly the unemployment rate itself.
Austin:
Steve Ciobo, do you get much feedback through your electorate office on under-employment.
Ciobo:
Absolutely and I hear it regularly, especially from small business owners as well. Steve, I mean, what I find extraordinary is unemployment has gone up in Australia. Since Labor was elected, unemployment has gone up. Which of itself, you know, you might say…
Austin:
Not a huge amount though has it Steve.
Ciobo:
You might say that it's opportunistic to say that and that's politically expedient, but let's look at some of the facts Steve. We had unemployment down to a record low of 33 years under the former Coalition. Now we had the GFC and this GFC has become the fix-all, the whitewash that the Labor Party constantly uses. Because they say 'well, look at where Australia is relative to the rest of the world. But the real story here is Steve, look at how Australia has performed in an historical context. Now we have above trend growth in this country. Above trend. We're part of the Asian economy which has been fairing so well and yet, despite that, we've got unemployment that's gone up. We've got the forecast that sees unemployment continuing to go up. We've got a reduction in the number of hours that people are working and that's that lived experience you refer to. Now, from my perspective, this is a direct consequence of Government policy. There is a complete evaporation of consumer confidence out there in the community and this has been brought about by a number of things, but certainly the carbon tax and the impact on cost of living is a very big part of that. So, under-employment is a big issue. Employers, especially small business employers are more restrained in their employment opportunities and a little more cautious about taking more people on or giving them additional hours and that's what's flowing through to the community.
Austin:
Bernie, do you want to respond or pick up on that?
Ripoll:
Sure, you know if you listen to Steve, everything's just the Government's fault. It's just an easy line to throw out there but life's a little bit more complicated than that and I think people understand that. There are a whole range of issues at play. Anyone who understands our economy or just, even at the simplest level, just about getting a job and what drives employment and jobs growth and productivity and all those things. It simply is that we are a part of a big economy and part of a global economy. What happens in China affects us directly. What happens in the United States affects us directly. What we do in terms of our, let's say, iron ore prices. If they spike up or spike down that has a massive flow back through as to jobs and employment. You know, the price of coal and iron ore aren't a reflection of government policy. They're about supply and demand.
Ciobo:
Bernie, what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
Ripoll:
It's over simplistic to just say, everything is the government's fault.
Ciobo:
Well, that's a ridiculous comment to make.
Ripoll:
We can always throw out that line, but it's just a cop out. The reality is we are, yes we're above trend in our region for growth. In fact, in our region we're not in fact we're below because in our region, Asia economies …
(inaudible)
Ripoll:
Well, you can look back to the 1950s too if you like Steve, but it was a different world then. The reality is today, Australia is doing well. We could be doing better and that's what this Government, this Labor Government is focussed on; doing better, including trying to lift the rate of participation for people, trying to encourage people back in to the workforce so that they are not staying at home, so they are actually are encouraged and that's done through a whole range of Government policies and at the same time, reflecting the fact that we've got less revenues to deal with, cause that's what's happened right across the world. Prices for coal have gone down, prices iron ore have gone down…
Ciobo:
This is glib rhetoric.
Ripoll:
They had a spike last week. That's just the reality. If things were simpler, sure, fine. He who has the solution to everything, please come forward in one paragraph and tell us what it is.
Austin:
I think iron ore prices are going back up again. Can I ask you that we often compare ourselves with OECD countries. Wouldn't it be better or more relevant today to compare ourselves with our Asian trading partners? You know, the big nations we trade with. A few people have mentioned to me that they think the old OECD comparison is not that useful anymore. Steve Ciobo, do you have any thoughts in this?
Ciobo:
Well, I think you've got to compare like with like. We're a developed economy…
Austin:
But we're really linked with Asia now though aren't we?
Ciobo: Certainly, we're linked with Asia and this is the point I made before Steve is that in our region, this region has continued to grow quite strongly over the past four years. Australia and I agree with Bernie. The Australian economy isn't doing too badly and that's exactly the reason why I'm concerned that unemployment is going up. The point more broadly Steve comes down to this; if the Australian economy, and the people had confidence in this Government and in the way in which this economy forecast ahead, you would see these unemployment numbers starting to go down. Comparisons for the OECD to the complete blow out that's occurred in Europe aren't particularly valid from that point of view, but they are valid because they're developed economies whereas most of our region, for example China, Myanmar, Vietnam, all of those countries are of course are developing economies so there is some contrast there.
Austin:
What do you think Bernie Ripoll? (inaudible)
Ripoll:
I broadly agree with Steve. Just on that fact that you've got to compare like with like. The reason we use OECD is because they're developed countries and it gives us a base to work from. It's very difficult to, for example, look at economic growth against perhaps a country like Vietnam which comes from a much lower base and a very different standard of living to ours, or for example our national gross earnings or average wage for a male average weekly earnings. So you need to compare like with like, that's why we compare with OECD, it gives us a good benchmark. That doesn't mean we don't use other indicators. It doesn't mean we don't look at our own region, our neighbourhood and in fact a lot of the things that this Labor Government has done has been about exactly doing that. That's why we've got our White Paper in to the Asian Century, looking at what happens in our backyard, how are we going to play a major role in the next 50 year or 100 years in our own backyard, our own region, because that's where the focus is. The United States has got this thing called the pivot, they're pivoting back to the Asia-Pacific. We're been there for a very long time, we understand it and that's the policies we're working on.
Austin:
This is 612 ABC Brisbane. 24 minutes past 9. Federal Labor Member for Oxley, Bernie Ripoll is my guest. Steve Ciobo, Federal Liberal Member for Moncrieff. Steve Austin's my name. Bernie Ripoll, tell me what is the Government's aim? The Government's trying to consolidate and it's got a Bill before the Senate, the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill. What, in general terms, what's the aim of this new Bill please?
Ripoll:
Well, you said it in your introduction and that's to consolidate. There's currently five different Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws which means that there'll be different standards and different levels and if you have five of anything they're not going to be identical and so we're going to consolidate in to one Act. We're going to use a best practice, if you like, benchmark. It will make it simpler, much much cheaper, much more accessible for people, but also better for respondents and complainants to be able to deal with matters where they feel they've been discriminated against and in particular where a person might feel that they've been discriminated against based on their age and perhaps and their marital status or the fact that for a woman, she may be pregnant at work, so being able to bring all of that in to one and to bring forward one case rather than have multiple cases. So it's really about simplification. It's part of an election commitment and it's a good way just to make life simpler for people and also make it more consistent for business. Simpler for them to understand and to comply. If you have a better understanding of a law you've got more chance of applying it properly.
Austin:
There's been widespread criticism across the political rainbow or spectrum, if you like, and many people have argued (a) that it doesn't go far enough and the exact opposite that it does broaden dramatically, particularly the offence provisions. In other words, simply hurting someone's feelings today it looks almost like a legally actionable event. Is it correct that some of the definitions where someone could be offended, or the sort of the protected attributes, I think was Gary Johns' term, are being broadened or widened?
Ripoll:
I don't agree at all with that assessment. People will always say it doesn't go far enough and I agree with them and that's probably the point, that's the good point. These things are incremental, they should be staged, step at a time. People ought to have an opportunity to digest these new consolidation of the laws. It doesn't effectively change what the laws are and it doesn't override the state laws or state legislation. What it does is just bring together, a single standard, best practice that was already in the existing Acts and brings them together so that you've got just one standard. An opportunity to always say it just doesn't go far enough for me is just another one of these cop outs, it's just typical of critics who will just always say 'do more or do nothing'. I'd rather actually say let's increment it up, let's stage it up and it gives people better access and it also makes it cheaper because there'll be no cost attributed in terms of people being able to deal with this through the courts, same as in Fair Work Australia cases.
Austin:
Steve Ciobo.
Ciobo:
Well, the point I want to make at the outset Steve is the Coalition has always been supportive of any discrimination measures. That goes back over decades now and with respect to the proposal that in this case the Attorney General Nicola Roxon has put forward, we've indicated that we approach it with an un-blinkered attitude. We want to look at it closely, examine what the implications of this is going to be. Senate hearings are taking place next week and we continue to look at the evidence that's been put before that Senate Committee as to whether or not we will support this legislation. But there's really three primary areas that are causing myself and others some real concern. The first of these is that by broadening the definition in the way in which the Attorney General proposes, what we're now effectively going to see is the extension of antidiscrimination so that effectively, and this is what has been put forward by a number of experts, if someone has so-called 'hurt-feelings' over comments that have been made and in their view find them offensive, that could very well be actionable. So you could have people bringing actions against media outlets and others on the basis of this antidiscrimination because of their hurt feelings and that to me flies in the face of common sense as well as past legal precedent. The second point is that we're seeing a reversal of the onus of proof and that's been put forward in the draft proposal. So, instead of it actually being a case of making a compelling case, it's now a case of you have to prove otherwise. And the third point is, what we've effectively seen because of this pathological, ideological approach in many respects it seems to have been adopted thus far by the Attorney General, is that where there's been community support for antidiscrimination measures that have been put forward, you're now actually seeing a breaking down of that universal community support and I think that's the great travesty of this, where you will actually see the community less inclined to support anti-discrimination measures because of the massive overreach that potentially lies in this Bill and that is, I think, the great shame about what's been put forward here, so, we'll look at it but there are a number of creeping concerns now that are coming up on the radar very strongly.
Austin:
Bernie, the Antidiscrimination Bill, the consolidated Bill, why does it reverse the onus of proof? That seems counter to hundreds of years of Westminster legal tradition, why is that?
Ripoll:
Well, I'm glad you said Westminster tradition because actually this has come out of the United Kingdom, out of Westminster. The reverse burden of proof is actually easier in this case where you just have to explain why you made the decision, so it's called reverse burden of proof, onus of proof. But it's really about getting the person, the respondent, to just explain, so why did you do this. It's actually a common sense approach and will work better to resolve cases. The evidence from the UK, where this is exactly the case, demonstrates not only that it works, but it keeps the majority of these cases out of court so they're resolved out of court and it hasn't affected or impacted on the outcomes of those cases. There's good evidence of this and that's why we've gone down this path because it makes it easier. Steve also raised the issue of broadening the definition as if it was something bad or sinister, pathological, he even said. That's not the case at all. When you bring together five separate Acts in to one, you include all of it. So, in that sense it does broaden, but it also makes it clearer, it makes it simpler. It means that instead of a person being discriminated against on the basis of more than one ground having to take separate cases, it's just all consolidated in to one. So, yes, it's broadening, but it also makes it easier. Also, just as a final point in terms of brining all this stuff together, of course it's never easy but it is the right way to go because it does make things more accessible, clearer for business in particular, it does make it clearer in parts where there have been confusions in the past, particularly where you can discriminate, there ought to be a right to discriminate and there is on a whole range of grounds. For example, you don't allow a vision impaired person to obtain a driver's licence, for very good reason. So there are grounds upon which you can discriminate and that will be clearer in law and just to make it easier and simpler for both parties; complainants and respondents.
Austin:
Steve Ciobo.
Ciobo:
Steve, how Orwellian of you Bernie. Seriously, how Orwellian. You sit there and repeat…
Ripoll:
I'm standing Steve.
Ciobo:
Well, you standing and repeating talking points that are obviously issued by Nicola Roxon's office and to turn around and say you simply have to explain why you discriminated, well let's be clear, what you're doing is saying to, it might be an employer, it might a school-based organisation, whatever it is, you're turning around saying unless you can prove satisfactorily the reason why you put in place this discrimination you'll be guilty. That's what you're doing. So it's not a case of making it easier, you're saying you are judged to be guilty unless you can prove your innocence. That's what a reverse onus of proof it.
Ripoll:
No it's not. (inaudible)
Ciobo:
Yes it is. As opposed to the current status quo, which is that someone needs to prove that they have been discriminated against, so that's the reversal that's taken place. But more broadly than that, and I'm glad you acknowledged that this is a broadening of the definition of any discrimination.
Ripoll:
There's nothing wrong with that.
Ciobo:
Well, you haven't addressed the issue of why you are potentially paving the way for people to bring an action over hurt feelings. For someone to turn around and say and make a comment that someone else finds offensive, to then be able to bring an action because they find those comments offensive I just find this extension of the law potentially very (inaudible)
Ripoll:
Well Steve, it doesn't say that in the law and that's your interpretation and some people's interpretation.
Ciobo:
A number of experts agree with it.
Ripoll:
A number of experts may agree amongst themselves, it's just simply not the case and it's not in law and it's not written there, you can't point to that anywhere because it's not there. Some people may have interpreted that this may be the case, well, let the law be tested. It's always the case and this is the step by step, incremental right way to do these things and the reverse burden of proof actually makes sense. It's almost impossible for someone to prove they've been discriminated against. If you're a pregnant woman in the workforce and you get sacked for that reason, but no one says it's for that reason , they just say 'you know, nudge, nudge, wink, wink' and you're gone. How are you ever going to prove that? It's not possible. But what you can do though, if believe you've been discriminated against because of that reason well then you can bring that case forward and ask the respondent to actually say 'well, why did you get rid of that person' and then that creates the opportunity for that person to actually say 'well, actually it was for very good reason, it was for x, y and z.' Let that be the case. It's the case in the UK and it's proved to work really well. In the end, if you say you are a supporter of antidiscrimination laws as you say for decades you've been, then give people that fair opportunity. The law has not been working and that's why this change is coming forward. It works in the UK this way and it works really well and it should work the same here for people to give them the same opportunity.
Austin:
I have to wrap it up. Steve Ciobo, the Senate starts taking the evidence on this Bill next week is it?
Ciobo:
Further hearings taking place next week.
Austin:
I would like to pursue this will you both. Perhaps I might ask you to perhaps bring some personal examples next week and that might give you both a chance to further expand your position. But I have to leave it there. Bernie, thank you very much. Bernie Ripoll I should point out that Safe Cycle in Queensland has sent a tweet saying 'is Bernie a serious cyclist? I've seen him on the road. He looks like a cycling God.' Quote, unquote. Thank you Bernie.
Ripoll:
No comment.
Austin:
No comment. Steve Ciobo, Federal Member for Moncrieff. Thank you Steve Ciobo.
Ciobo:
I wouldn't look like a cycling God, let me tell you Steve.
Austin:
Thank you.