SUBJECT: Anti-discrimination Bill, underemployment, contacting your local MP
A podcast and mp3 download of this interview is available on the ABC website.
STEVE AUSTIN:
Inside Canberra with Bernie Ripoll and Steve Ciobo. I'm sorry chaps, I forgot that last week was the…
BERNIE RIPOLL:
Was it that interesting?
AUSTIN:
You weren't here Bernie.
RIPOLL:
Yeah, it's true. I was here on air and in spirit.
AUSTIN:
Well, there you go. Good morning and welcome back.
RIPOLL:
G'day.
AUSTIN:
And Steve Ciobo, morning Steve and welcome back to both of you.
STEVE CIOBO:
Pleasure to be back.
AUSTIN:
I want to talk a little bit about how to approach your Federal MP. It's a Federal election this year and I want to actually help constituents get access to you and the best way to do that. Because every now and then I get emails from listeners saying I tried to speak with Steve or I tried to speak with Bernie and I didn't get much satisfaction so we'll help them with that in just a moment. But before I do that, can I ask you Bernie again about this anti-discrimination legislation?
RIPOLL:
Sure.
AUSTIN:
Is the Government likely to ditch their amalgamation of these five Bills and amalgamation into one? It's before the Senate Committee this week.
RIPOLL:
Well, what we've done is we're in the process of consolidating five Bills as you know as we talked about last week. That's a good idea and what it does is strengthen the legislation. It makes it simpler. Anytime you're going to take five different Bills and put them into one (there is going to be some complexity) but I think the real test here is that we had a very careful and lengthy consultation process of which this debate is part of. There's a Senate inquiry, there's a whole range of things happening and Government will take all of that on board. Then introduce the Bill because there is no Bill yet to be introduced into the House – it's still draft. Then the House and the Parliament can further debate it. So there's all those opportunities out there. I think what we're seeing though, in terms of what the Opposition is doing, is a political campaign against this anti-discrimination existing Bills. These are five existing Bills. The only material change, the only material change in this that we've included for the first time sexuality is part of anti-discrimination and we've talked around a range of other issues…
AUSTIN:
Senator George Brandis told me the onus of proof had been reversed as well. He named you directly. He listened to what you had to say last week and he had a swipe at you earlier on this week and said it changes the onus of proof as well.
RIPOLL:
Well look, it changes it but not in a way that is being put forward by Senator Brandis and it's no different to the, you know, so-called reverse onus of proof gives a sort of negative connotation. What it is, is the proof being borne by the person bringing the complaint forward as is the case in all legal cases. You still have to establish a prima facie case, you still have to go through all of those things. But with anti-discrimination – and it's the same reverse onus of proof burden, for example in consumer law and by the way it is the same onus of proof burden that was in the Liberal Government's, the Howard Government's, Workchoices legislation. So, you know, a bit rich on their side to sort of say this is something new or different. What it is, is really asking the person with the capacity to bring forward the evidence to do so. Often that will be firstly in the case of the person making the complaint. You know what is your complaint and prove that you've got a complaint prima facie. If that then isn't resolved at mediation stage and it actually goes to Court, it's the person with the most evidence. So for example, let's say it's an employer. The employer would be asked, well what is the case, why was this person sacked? They might just say because they are a really bad performer and bad worker. Fine. Or they might actually say it's for some other reason. I mean this is not unusual and this is not so different and this is the same as in other pieces of law – same as in the UK, same as in Australia and same as what the Liberal Government did when they were in power.
AUSTIN:
Bernie Ripoll is the Federal Labor Member for Oxley. Steve Ciobo is the Federal Liberal Member for Moncrieff. Steve Ciobo.
CIOBO:
Steve, I mean it's extraordinary to listen to Bernie's comments just then. I mean talking about trying to sell a pet crocodile as some kind of pussy cat. I mean, you've got a change. This notion that this is a harmless reverse onus of proof and that it's still an evidentiary burden on the person bringing the complaint – wrong, false, incorrect. It is just plain wrong. The fact is this now says if it were to become law that you are guilty of discrimination (inaudible), it does, you are guilty of discrimination unless you can prove that you haven't discriminated in a way that is unlawful. So, that is what a reverse onus of proof does. So, if someone comes in and applies for a job, doesn't succeed in securing the job and then says, you know what, I wasn't employed because of the fact that my social origin, or the colour of my skin or whatever it is. They make the assertion. That person is deemed to be guilty.
RIPOLL:
That is not the case.
CIOBO:
(Inaudible) Unless in this case the employer were able to prove that that wasn't the reason they discriminated against that person and didn't give them the job. So that is what a reverse onus of proof is and to try and package it up in some other way is simply plain wrong. The other point that Bernie made, which is incorrect, is to make the assertion this is only about repackaging five existing laws. It actually goes much further than that. This isn't just a case of repackaging five existing laws, it in a very material way, expands the definition of discrimination to include for example across all aspects offending someone. So if someone – and this the point that has been made by a number of academics and legal experts – if someone is offended by something that someone says for example, it might be something that you say Steve on this radio program, it might be something that politicians say in debate, they can argue well hang on, this is a breach of discrimination laws as the draft legislation outlines because I'm offended by this. And guess what? You are deemed effectively to be guilty unless you can prove that, no, I had a legal justification to make those comments and therefore I am not in breach of the law.
AUSTIN:
Bernie Ripoll.
RIPOLL:
Completely wrong. This is a scare campaign, just like the other scare campaigns that have been happening with the Liberal Party.
CIOBO:
Is this academics involved in this scare campaign Bernie? (Inaudible)
AUSTIN:
Let him go Steve Ciobo.
RIPOLL:
This is a complete exaggeration. This is not the case and let's remember this is a draft Bill in consultation phase going through a Senate inquiry. People pull at it and different views and that's part of the process and what makes a great democracy and good legislation in the end.
AUSTIN:
This Committee is likely to take this evidence and, what's the word, reform whatever is presented to Parliament.
RIPOLL:
Well look, it may or may not do. I am not there to determine what this Committee does. But what I am saying is that what we've heard and what Senator Brandis has been saying is a scare campaign. It is not that, it is not a massive…
CIOBO:
Which part of I said is incorrect Bernie?
RIPOLL:
Well, all of it. It is not a massive expansion of the existing laws. It is a consolidation of five Bills in to one. The only material change is the fact that it now includes discrimination on the basis of sexuality. The reverse onus of proof which will always sound bad but is contained in many other areas and don't forget the burden of proof still rests with the person making the complaint. They have to establish a prima facie case as is the case in all law, as is the case that currently exists. Now, if that can be resolved at mediation, then it's done. But if it goes to a Court there will be a shared burden of proof which is to say who has the capacity and the information to actually say why they, for example if somebody loses their job – if somebody gets the sack. An employer should be able to be asked why did you sack that person? I say because they are really bad employee for whatever reason. Well, that's a legitimate reason and it's not discrimination and therefore…
CIOBO:
Bernie, it's not a shared burden of proof. It's a reverse burden of proof and to claim that there is this new legal term that you've developed here this morning at quarter past 9 called shared burden of proof is plain wrong and more. It's plain wrong.
AUSTIN:
Steve Ciobo, George Brandis did say that this reverse onus of proof was there in the original legislation in a couple of elements.
CIOBO:
Correct.
AUSTIN:
This simply makes it uniform. It will be there in all parts.
CIOBO:
But now it's much more expansive.
RIPOLL:
That's not the case.
CIOBO:
This is the point that I alluded to which Bernard is saying I am incorrect on. No, that's not the case. This is an expansion of the existing anti-discrimination laws. You see, don't forget Steve and this part of the reason why I and others have problems with this draft proposal. There is broad community support for anti-discrimination laws. This is the great travesty because people support anti-discrimination but what we've now got is the Government attempting to make it so expansive and applying the reverse burden of proof across the entire law so that the community is actually recoiling away and to suggest…
RIPOLL:
That's simply not the case. The community is not recoiling away.
CIOBO:
… it's a political campaign and that is all there is to it is to betray the fact that there are academics opposed to it. Legal experts opposed to it. The Human Rights Commission is opposed to it. If that doesn't signal that there's a problem here, I don't know. (inaudible)
AUSTIN:
I think they've said they recommend some changes.
CIOBO:
They're opposed to it in its existing form. I mean, that's an important point.
RIPOLL:
But that's my point too. This is an exaggeration. There will always be elements which there are arguments and debates over and that is part of the process. That's why we are consulting. We are not ramming it down anyone's throats. That is expected and that should be the process and I agree with that. That doesn't mean they are opposed to it and that does not mean this is a bad change. It's a good change, it's a consolidation and a simplification. It makes it better. The big change here is that it adds one of the basis of anti-discrimination based on sexuality.
AUSTIN:
16 past 9, this is 612 ABC Brisbane. Inside Canberra with two Federal MP's. Bernie Ripoll is the Federal Labor Member for Oxley. He is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. Steve Ciobo is the Federal Liberal Member for Moncrieff. Last year I focused on this a bit and that's the issue of underemployment. The underemployment rate is a smidge under double the unemployment rate. It's clearly an issue for my listeners and Roy Morgan Research which holds data going back to 1948 saying this is what's affecting people's lived experience and it's having a real detrimental effect on people's living standards and more and it's the result of a whole range of things for difficulties paying mortgage and more. Underemployment, Bernie Ripoll, what is the Federal Labor Government doing about the underemployment issue?
RIPOLL:
Well, a whole range of things. I think the first thing to note though is that since coming to Government we've created a further 800,000 jobs and we're working on a whole range of programs related specifically to getting people (a) to participate in the workforce or to find further work. It's a complex issue – I know we always say that, but the reality is it just is. Some people may be underemployed by choice, others not by choice. Some people want to work part-time, others do not. Casual work, if you work for less than 15 hours in a fortnight you'll be considered to be underemployed. The underemployment rate in Australia nationally in November last year was 7.2 per cent. The national unemployment rate is about 5.
AUSTIN:
The underemployment rate's now around 10, isn't it?
RIPOLL:
Sorry?
AUSTIN:
The underemployment rate is just around 10.
RIPOLL:
No, the underemployment rate is November last year (two months ago) 7.2. The underutilisation rate was about 12. 11 or 12. Look there is some nuances around the definition of these things. Underemployment is distinctly different to underutilisation, linked to productivity and a range of other things.
AUSTIN:
Either way, people can't get enough work or the work they need to live.
RIPOLL:
Well, yes and no. They may not be seeking further work. So they will still be counted in that rate but may not be seeking more work or they may be. So, there is an underutilisation rate as well as an underemployment rate. That doesn't take away, you know talking about the numbers is sometimes just a waste of time in a sense.
AUSTIN:
I agree.
RIPOLL:
Because I agree with you. It is an issue. It's an issue and will continue to be an issue in perpetuity and particularly for mature age workers because I think we all agree we'd rather see that people's skills and knowledge is properly utilised, fully utilised. The fact is – and we've just been talking about discrimination – people are discriminated against because of their age. We know that's a fact. Very hard to prove by the way, very difficult to prove. If you don't get a job, you try and prove it's because you are 55 of age. I don't think there is anyone anywhere just about that could prove that. It's very very difficult. Anyway, that's a subject for another time. We understand the figures that are there and we want to do more in this particular area and we continue to do work in this including putting money into programs to work in this particular area.
AUSTIN:
Steve Ciobo.
CIOBO:
Steve, I think one of the fundamental differences between the Liberal Party, the Coalition and the Labor Party really are distilled down to this. The Coalition is of the belief that Governments don't create jobs. When Bernie sits here and says that we have created 800,000 jobs I just think that's plain wrong. The people that create employment are those men and women involved in small business, those that are involved in private enterprise – and the notion that Governments create jobs is in my view farcical. What is required is for public policy settings to be made in way that promotes job creation. Both in terms of new jobs and in terms of providing additional employment so that people aren't underemployed. To me the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and in this particular case the former Coalition Government got unemployment down to a 33 year record low. Unemployment has gone up. Now, it's convenient that Bernie…
AUSTIN:
They had a small little thing called the global financial crisis though Steve. (inaudible)
CIOBO:
Well this is it and we've discussed it before Steve and it's very convenient because they'll say, well hang on, it was all a consequence of the GFC, it's not our fault. Unemployment has gone up by nearly 2 percentage points. It's not our fault, it's the GFC. You know Steve, I reassert the point that I've made on this program. Australians did not go into recession. Our economic growth has continued. We are above trend when it comes to economic growth. This country…
AUSTIN:
Thanks to a Labor Government?
CIOBO:
No, not thanks to the Labor Government. Thanks to our position in the world. Because our position and our economy is in large part being driven by a still veracious Chinese economy. That's what it's thanks to Steve and the notion that the Labor Party has sat there with its hands on the levers controlling our national economy and delivering this bounty of goodness to Australia is plain wrong. What's happened is that our region has continued to grow strongly – predominantly thanks to China. The Australian economy, as I said, didn't go into recession, not because the Government spent $45 billion on a cash splash but because the Chinese economy has remained resilient. The reason that I say this is germane to unemployment is because when you contrast it with for example when we had the Asian financial meltdown in the late 90's which materially and in a detrimental way impacted our specific region and in the stark contrast to the so called GFC we, thanks to the policies that we had in place, kept the Australian economy out of recession then as well. That's the point of contrast and that's the reason why I say policy settings are important for promoting employment in the private sector.
AUSTIN:
Bernie Ripoll.
RIPOLL:
Look, all fascinating and interesting but Steve if you're going say we don't create jobs then don't blame us when a job is lost. Because if we don't do it one way we can't possibly do it the other either.
CIOBO:
Well Bernie anyone listening to that statement knows it to be palpably false. The notion that Governments can't destroy jobs, the notion that your carbon tax (inaudible).
RIPOLL:
Campbell Newman has been really good at it so it is possible. Yes, there is no doubt about that.
CIOBO:
If you want to make that claim you can make that claim.
RIPOLL:
On the reverse side of the coin and look, Governments do this all the time. Certainly 800,000 jobs have been created while we've been in Government. I'm really proud of that record. 800,000 jobs have been created while we (inaudible) …the unemployment rate is at record lows and it's doing really well.
CIOBO:
It's not at record lows. (inaudible)
RIPOLL:
Well, you know, interest rates are at record lows. You know, I love this tit for tat because when John Howard is in he said you'll always get lower interest rates under a John Howard Government only problem was they kept going up. They went up ten times under his Government. We come in and they are lower than they've ever been. We can talk about jobs in the same sense.
CIOBO:
The official cash rate is lower than it's been. It's at what Wayne Swan called emergency levels.
RIPOLL:
And interest rates are also low…
CIOBO:
When it comes to the amount people are paying on their business mortgage, when it comes to the amount that people are paying on their overdraft, when it comes to the average home loan rate, I am sorry, but they are even today higher than were under the Coalition because of the reduction in competition in the banking sector brought about by policies your Government introduced. So, the official cash rate is lower but the price that people pay to their banks is higher.
CIOBO:
I asked the question about underemployment Bernie, because as you know we got an email from a constituent who'd been in your office expressing concern about underemployment. That probably doesn't come to your electorate office. People don't talk to you about underemployment. But certainly an issue with people that phoned the radio station last year. I wanted to end up on asking you how to approach your Federal MP. We get a lot of emails from listeners saying sometime they get satisfaction out of their MP, sometimes they don't. What's the best way for a constituent to contact you, raise and issue with you and try and get it resolved? Bernie, I will start with you and then I'll come to you Steve Ciobo.
RIPOLL:
Sure. Well, look. One is and I'll speak generically here. I think we are all available. Certainly I try to make myself as available as possible. Of course I am not in my office 100 per cent of the time and I don't specifically answer the phone myself. That's why I have staff and an office and there we try to deal with a whole range of people on a whole range levels. Look, if people have got specific issues, please ring in, email, write, pop in. But I'll just make a couple of points.
AUSTIN:
Do you let them email? I get very long, sometimes very angry ranting emails and I think, were you drinking when you sent this to me? It must happen with Federal Members of Parliament as well.
RIPOLL:
Look, we get a bit of everything, there is no question of that.
AUSTIN:
Chain emails.
RIPOLL:
We get the lot. I think a couple of key points to make for your listeners.
AUSTIN:
Because I want it to be effective. I want them to through your door, be heard by you and feel like they get satisfaction.
RIPOLL:
Yeah, sure. I think there is a separation between being heard, dealing with someone's issue and satisfying them. Sometimes the two are not quite related or even possible. Depends on what people want or expect. I think sometimes expectations are a bit difficult. For example, in the area of employment or underemployment or whatever else, we can guide people, give them information. That may not satisfy them because they may already have that information but I can't physically go out and get you a job. That makes life a bit tough because sometimes that is the expectation.
AUSTIN:
Do you prefer a letter, do you prefer an email, do you prefer a phone call first up when someone first wants to speak to you?
RIPOLL:
I don't really have a preference. I think that people come in… again, I think we just need to make a couple of points about the difficulty around this. By the time people come to us they are often at the end of their tether. They've often gone from one agency to another agency and their life's become very complicated and sometimes I get people that come in and I say ok, I know you're really angry about whatever issue, so tell me what your issue is and they start by saying well in 1974 this happened. I go, mmhh ok.
AUSTIN:
Carrying some baggage.
RIPOLL:
What I'm saying is that the simpler the issue, the simpler we can fix it and the quicker we can do that we're certainly accessible in terms of our communities and being around and visiting schools and you know being at fetes and so forth. But the best way is if people bring their issues to us and we can try and work with them. Try to resolve those issues. Sometimes they're really complicated issues. That's normal because the reason they've come to us is because it's really complicated. We will devote time and energy. We've worked with people sometimes for weeks, months or even years to resolve really complex issues and done it whether it's immigration, whether it's Centrelink, whether it's payments, whatever it might be.
AUSTIN:
Steve Ciobo? How do you prefer it for your constituents to try and a) get access to your office? Do you like it letter, email, phone call, can you meet them?
CIOBO:
Sure. I agree with everything Bernie said. The point I'd make Steve is that some people get frustrated the length of time it can take to get in front of Federal MP's. In our defence, you're in Canberra not quite six months a year and then when you are back in the electorate, inevitably you're at a Rotary function, you're at a school function. You are doing all those things and you're on programs like this. It's not as if we are sitting behind our desks in our office a lot of the time and so because of the limited amount of time that does mean that it requires a little bit of forward planning. The point that I often make to people is that if they call in – I always prefer telephone – if they call in and speak to one of our staff and we all have staff. It's not that we're playing hot potato and getting our staff to deal with it but they can start the enquiry process. They can get the ball rolling and they can give us a little précis as to where that is and then I will personally call people back and provide them information and work out a way forward. The other point that I would about email is that email still is largely unreliable. The problem with being a Federal MP is that our email addresses are of course available to all and sundry. That unfortunately means that we get attacked by so-called spam bots and all these kinds of things.
RIPOLL:
Damn those spam bots.
CIOBO:
It's typical Steve to in the morning go in and have an excess of 400 emails sitting in your inbox. Most of which is spam and occasionally, with the filters that we run, legitimate emails end up in the quarantine bin and you don't actually see it. So, email is fine but it's actually not preferred and occasionally they go missing.
AUSTIN:
So you like concise typed letter of some sort?
CIOBO:
No, a phone call is the best way. Then the staff can initiate it and then I will call people back. I am sure Bernie does the same thing and that way you can keep it moving even though people often insist I want to see them face to face. But in reality they might have to wait a couple of weeks to get face to face whereas if you are able to just do it over the telephone you can get the ball rolling and this applies to all the 226 MP's across the country of course.
AUSTIN:
Gentlemen, thanks for coming in. Steve Ciobo is the Federal Liberal Member for Moncrieff. Bernie Ripoll is the Federal Labor Member for Oxley.