Discussion About BHP Dispute, Border Protection, Labor Party/Union Relationship, Unfair Dismissal Laws, The International Criminal Court, Administration Of The ACCC And Paid Maternity Leave

Robert McClelland - Shadow Attorney- General and Shadow Minister for Workplace Relations

TV Interview

Transcript - Meet The Press Channel 10 - 17 June 2002

E & EO - PROOF ONLY

GREG TURNBULL, PRESENTER: Hello and welcome to Meet the Press. Federal Parliament resumes this week with pressure on the Labor Opposition over a range of issues, including border protection, anti-terrorism laws, and Labor's troublesome relationship with the trade union movement. Straddling these issues and more is the Shadow Minister for Workplace Relations and Shadow Attorney-General, Robert McClelland. And this week he meets the press. Mr McClelland, welcome to Meet the Press.

ROBERT McCLELLAND, SHADOW MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good morning, Greg.

GREG TURNBULL: Well, first to the BHP picket line dispute, which appears all over except that the Minister for Workplace Relations wants to go on with it in the courts. What's your reaction to Tony Abbott's hardline approach to this matter?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Well, it's quite astounding, quite frankly. He must be the only industrial relations minister in Australia's history that wants to prolong a dispute after it's been resolved. BHP are quite capable of taking care of themselves. They've resolved the matter and, indeed, have an ongoing process of developing their plant with a guarantee for supply. The union has guaranteed supply while these further reforms are taking place.

GREG TURNBULL: Well, Tony Abbott obviously wants to lead the charge and is trying to encourage employers to go over the top with him. But doesn't he have a point that, unless dealt with now, there will be a whole lot of enterprise bargaining agreements to be reached in the car and related industries over the next few months and unless the union's taken on now there'll be more trouble?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: He's coming at it from precisely the wrong angle. He's pursuing the penalty after the dispute rather than empowering the commission to assist the parties to resolve matters. I mean, it's in Australia's interest to have industry development, cooperative workplace relations. But instead of abiding by or acceding to the industry's request - employers and unions - to have a summit to work through these difficulties and indeed to get on a forward program of developing the industry, he's saying, "Look, we're going to penalise you." Rather than assisting the parties to resolve their problems and challenges, to confront their challenges. Precisely the wrong approach.

GREG TURNBULL: Could we move, briefly, to some of the Federal Parliament issues that will confront you this week. You're part of the shadow ministry which will tomorrow meet to endorse, presumably, Simon Crean's decision to say 'no' to the Government's plan to excise 3,000 islands to the north of Australia from our migration zone. Doesn't that create the spectre of another border protection debacle for the Labor Party?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: I think the Government is hoping that will be the case and quite frankly, you've got to question their motives given that background. But our inclination is to oppose it simply because it won't work. If boats are coming towards Australia, and they've got a choice of going left or right, we believe this will drive them right onto Australia's shores - counterproductive in other words.

GREG TURNBULL: But you were prepared to support the Government in an election climate on the excision of Christmas Island, Cocos Islands and Ashmore Reef. What's different now?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Well, they were precise weren't they? The Government identified those islands, far from Australian shores, and, indeed, in the context where preceding that excision there had been this ridiculous situation where the people on board the 'Tampa' couldn't be brought on shore because they were going to trigger off the internal migration requirements.

GREG TURNBULL: But how are you going to sell this to your electors in Sydney, especially if a boat turns up in the Torres Strait?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Right, if the Government puts specific proposals, if they identified an island or several islands, specifically, as being potential targets for these illegal arrivals, we would consider it. But the excision, globally, of 3,000 islands - I mean, what message does it send to people who live on those islands? Are we saying, "Look, we're re-establishing the WWII Brisbane line", where we drew a line across Australia at Brisbane and said, "We'll let the Japanese come down this far "and then we'll make a stand." This excision is effectively Philip Ruddock's Brisbane line.

GREG TURNBULL: But what are the politics of this? Isn't it that Labor stood so close to the Government for so long on this issue, got nothing out of it, and is now trying to create a bit of differentiation?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: We're not about creating differentiation, or politics. We're about judging policies on their merits. This policy just makes no sense. The excision of 3,000 islands for the purpose of Philip Ruddock making a statement that he's tough on this issue. How tough can he be on issues of security when yesterday the Auditor-General handed down a report, saying that our security at our airports is lax. Excising 3,000 islands from our migration zone isn't going to repair these fundamental security issues where terrorists are likely to come into Australia.

GREG TURNBULL: On the subject of Philip Ruddock - he says this morning in a Melbourne newspaper if those people on Nauru from Afghanistan who are declined refugee status, currently being induced to return to Afghanistan with Australian dollars, if they don't take the money and go, they'll be forced to go. What will Labor do on that?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Well, this isn't my portfolio. But, in terms of reasoning, there are laws in place as to whether someone is entitled to asylum status in Australia. If someone is not entitled to asylum status then there are procedures for removal. I would like to think that...

GREG TURNBULL: Forceable?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Again, I hope that doesn't occur. What clearly needs to be done, in consultation with the international community, is, you can't put people back in a circumstance of danger, but the international community generally, I mean, this is going on around the world, must work out a program for the return of these people as occurred in respect to Bosnia, for instance.

GREG TURNBULL: OK. Anti-terrorism laws. The Government has watered down that group of laws, dealing with, for instance, the definition of terrorist acts and the proscription of organisations. Enough water? Or do you want more?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: No, we've got to consider these matters and John Faulkner and Darryl Melham have done a great job. But the Government has come some way. There are still some fundamental concerns, in particular, still some real concerns regarding the proscription power, the ability of the attorney-general to proscribe an organisation. He is talking about a review of that process by the Parliament but, quite frankly, we think that is quite an inappropriate forum to be deciding these sort of issues.

GREG TURNBULL: So, at this stage you're saying then, that, as re-written by the Government, the answer's still no from Labor?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Again, I can't speak on behalf of Caucus. But I suspect in respect to that proscription power in particular that it will be a rejection of that proposal. There have been ongoing discussions this week. I'm not sure where they got up to as of yesterday, for instance.

GREG TURNBULL: Time for a break. When we return with the panel we'll discuss the Labor Party and the trade union movement. Is it time for a divorce?

GREG TURNBULL: You're on Meet the Press with Shadow Workplace Relations Minister, Robert McClelland. And our panel this morning - Katharine Murphy of the 'Australian Financial Review' and Vivian Schenker from Radio National 'Breakfast'. The unions and the ALP - Katharine Murphy.

KATHARINE MURPHY, THE 'AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW': Mr McClelland, you're on the record supporting your leader's push to modernise the party. Do you think that trade unions should be exhibiting more leadership on this issue by backing changes that would make the Labor Party more relevant to the electorate?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Look, I would like to see more trade unions acknowledging that the party needs to be modernised. That it's in the interest of the labour movement generally to expand our membership base. Look, I think as common sense suggests, you're more likely to get new people on board, if you say, "When you come on board, you're going to be part of an equal partnership." It's as simple as that. I would like to see more trade unions embracing that concept.

KATHARINE MURPHY: And, what about the current instability in the right-wing faction which you're feeling most acutely in NSW? The NSW right is quite divided on these issues. And Victoria obviously has its own issues. Do you think that this instability currently in the right-wing faction is bad for Mr Crean in trying to push these changes through? Or are you confident that things will settle down in the fullness of time?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: There are always challenges within a political party, certainly within the Labor Party. I think Simon Crean is going to come through all those. At the end of the day, the party and modernisation is far more important than any individual or, indeed, any individual grievance. I've no doubt Simon's leadership will come through there.

GREG TURNBULL: You're the meat in the sandwich a little bit, in this regard, aren't you? You're trying to moderate the approach of the labour movement. You're also from the Caucus and the parliamentary Labor Party. And you're preaching the end to the language of class struggle and so forth. How do you get on when you explain that to, say, Doug Cameron?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Right, well, let me put it this way - most people in the trade union movement are decent, committed Australians. I'd, indeed, put Doug Cameron in that. There are some lunatics.

GREG TURNBULL: We've got time if you want to name them.

ROBERT McCLELLAND: But they are of no use to themselves, the union movement, or the country. And, indeed, that sort of language and that sort of attitude that a small minority have, is counterproductive, I believe, to the development of trade unionism as a whole. Australians are going to be far more attracted to trade unionism which is as much about growing the cake as talking about these old concepts of class warfare. They're irrelevant to most Australians.

VIVIAN SCHENKER, RADION NATIONAL 'BREAKFAST': So, how do feel, then, when you hear the unions saying they're going to shut down the car industry next year when those 500 enterprise agreements come up for renegotiation?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Well, again, statements about destructive measures are silly. On the other hand, what we've seen recently this week are some constructive outcomes. Certainly, Greg Combet and some Victorian unionists as well as employers called for a summit to work through these challenges facing the industry both in terms of issues of disputation but challenges for the further development of the industry. That's the language that Australian workers want to hear from unions.

VIVIAN SCHENKER: So, you would strongly condemn their threats to shut the industry down next year?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Well, it's a nonsensical threat. They've got to look at... and we're calling on all sides to work through these problems. The difference between Labor on IR and Liberal on IR is we're about building partnerships, they're about creating divisions. The Liberal Party is about wedging worker from management, this language, literally, of warfare that Minister Abbott proposes.

GREG TURNBULL: But one of the differences between the Liberal and Labor parties on industrial relations is, of course, your approach to the unfair dismissal laws and the Government's attempts to exempt small business. Isn't it true that you proposed a compromise and you got rolled by the unions?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Yes, I proposed early in the piece - I'm not sure you can say by the unions but certainly the debate within the Caucus - I originally had foreshadowed, for instance, a small claims procedure involving small business. The proposals that we've actually put to the Government apply across the board to all businesses, are basically to take lawyers, professional advocates, out of the conciliation stage. So, at the end of the day, we think that will make the whole system operate effectively. But, certainly, these are debates that we had to have, and will continue to have, no doubt, on these sort of issues.

GREG TURNBULL: Well, the Government says your resistance to the unfair dismissal law changes, (a) - will cost 50,000 jobs, and (b) - will prevent the unemployment rate from going below 6%.

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Yes, well they say, "resistance to change". We're not resistant to change. We've proposed seven areas of change ourselves. What we're against is excising small business, carving out small business at a federal level - which, by the way, is only about 25% of small businesses - from the concept of a fair go which the Minister proposes. We're saying all Australian workers, no matter where they're employed, are entitled to a fair go before they're sacked. What we're talking about are proposals to streamline the process, make it cheaper, and indeed, make the system more effective.

KATHARINE MURPHY: But Mr McClelland, do you think those measures go far enough? Mr Crean has identified small business as a very important vote for Labor in the forthcoming election. You were forced, in essence, to retreat from the position that you put in the Caucus. Do you think what you've put to the Government goes far enough to address some of those concerns out of small business?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Look, we think so. Quite frankly, our proposals were devised before the NSW model came forward. There's great similarity between what we're proposing and what Bob Carr is proposing here in NSW with the support of employers and, indeed, the trade union movement. I've got to say, we were first on the block with our proposals there. So, look, what we're proposing is constructive. Small business face a situation where, quite frankly, they don't know if they're covered by a federal or a state law. A lot can be done to inform them and to develop national principles. You say to yourself - are you more likely to get national principles if they're based on a concept of a fair go all round or excising a small portion? I think that question answers itself.

GREG TURNBULL: Just before we go to a break - the reasonable hours case - the ACTU is raising as an issue, the excessive amounts, they say, of overtime people are being required to work. Do you support their concerns about that? And also - how can workers know that caps on their overtime won't mean limits on their income?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Yes, there's all a balance in this sort of thing. Clearly, when you start being too prescriptive for how people are going to determine their working conditions, how much time they work, you start treading on toes. But as a general principle, there is no doubt that too many people are working overtime to the point of exhaustion, to the point where it's straining marriages. Whereas, on the other hand, there's a great deal of underemployment in the community. We've got to work to try and get that balanced.

GREG TURNBULL: Time for another break. When we return - the International Criminal Court - what's in it for Australia?

GREG TURNBULL: You're on Meet the Press. The International Criminal Court - is it a club Australia should join? Vivian Schenker.

VIVIAN SCHENKER: Mr McClelland, the Government's clearly hopelessly divided over the International Criminal Court. Is the ALP rock solid?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Rock solid. Yes, it's a good thing for Australia. We agree 100% with Alexander Downer.

VIVIAN SCHENKER: Yes, rock solid behind Alexander Downer. That must be a first. A new position for the ALP.

ROBERT McCLELLAND: He said it was the greatest human rights achievement of his Government and we say it is a very significant achievement and indeed will be a great thing for the international community.

VIVIAN SCHENKER: It's interesting because most of the concerns so far, certainly the concern we've heard about, has been the possibility of Australian troops being tried for war crimes. But an academic from the US has suggested in this morning's press that the real concern for Australia ought to be the crimes against humanity section, that we run the risk of being sued by feminists and homosexuals and other minority groups for discrimination. Is that a real threat, do you think?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: That's rubbish. Australian prosecutors have been first rate in their involvement with the International War Crimes Tribunal. These prosecutors are going to be first class. The crimes against humanity that we are talking about are serious crimes, and indeed, paradoxically, one of them includes people-smuggling. They will be brought before a tribunal, if their country of origin won't take action against them. There have been concerns, of course, that people-smugglers in our region haven't been prosecuted. This is a way that the international community could say what you're doing is evil, it is a crime against humanity and call them before the international court.

VIVIAN SCHENKER: So, if the Government does vote against it, against ratification, it's too late for us to be invovled in the setting-up of the court. Would a future Labor government reverse that decision?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Yes. It would be a real tragedy if we're not involved in the setting-up of the court. There would be any number of eminent Australians who would be really terrific in their involvement. Former senator Tate, former Liberal member, now judge, John Dowd. From either side of politics any number of eminent Australians who would make a great contribution. If we miss that opportunity it would be a tragedy for the country and, quite frankly, it would be an outrage if the Government misses that opportunity.

GREG TURNBULL: You're right behind Alexander Downer on this one but what about the view of another former Liberal Party leadership contender, Bronwyn Bishop, who says, "The highest court of appeal in Australia should be an Australian court, not a foreign court in a foreign land with the power to charge our brave soldiers with genocide just for doing their duty." That will resonate with a lot of people, won't it?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: She should read the report, where the Liberal Party had the majority, of the Treaties Committee, which, quite frankly, dismissed that out of hand. It isn't a challenge to Australia's sovereignty. Before the court has any jurisdiction, you must have a situation where the domestic country is either unable or unwilling to take action. You're talking about effectively non-states, and non-states, the sort of area where al-Qa'ida are likely to establish their bases because there's no system of law and order to bring them to justice, bring them to account. This is a way of the international community getting into those locations and taking action against them, so the suggestion that our sovereignty is going to be impeded in some way is complete and utter rubbish.

KATHARINE MURPHY: Mr McClelland, off the court now but still in your legal portfolio, a number of business leaders, including David Murray, most assertively last week have questioned the performance of Allan Fels as the competition regulator. Mr Murray even suggested that the ACCC's administration of the trade practices law was corrupt. Is Labor entirely comfortable with the performance of Allan Fels as the competition regulator or would you like to see him change his approach?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: We haven't had a collective vote on it, I have to say, but from my personal point of view, I think he's administered his job without fear or favour. I think those accusations are quite unfounded. Clearly, in terms of some structural issues that we have to look at from the point of view of how the ACCC functions, we've got to look at whether the definition of 'market', given that we are a small economy, is appropriate. And, indeed, we've got to look at bumping up protections that small businesses have in terms of predatory practices by big business.

KATHARINE MURPHY: So the ACCC actually needs more powers to intervene on the part of small business and consumers?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Yes, I believe so. I believe they do. However, when we're talking about corporate structures and so forth and how they operate in the marketplace, there is an argument that we've got to look at perhaps a broader concept of 'market'. They are structural matters, I don't think they go to the way Fels either performs, or isn't performing, his job.

GREG TURNBULL: Do you think he's too quick on the draw with a press release?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: I've got to say, if it were me, his public profile wouldn't be my style.

VIVIAN SCHENKER: Is that counterproductive, that profile?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: In some ways, in terms of getting consumers awareness of their rights, small business awareness of their rights, I think it can be constructive. In terms of actually getting productive outcomes on controversial issues, it may be an impediment. If the trial becomes one that's viewed by how it's viewed in the media, as opposed to what the ultimate decision will be in the Federal Court.

VIVIAN SCHENKER: Would you go so far as to say the ACCC might be better off with a different type of leader?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Look, all these things are my personal opinion. I think he's done a good job and will continue to do a good job. There will be different styles for different people, I think that's all I can say there.

KATHARINE MURPHY: On another issues altogether but back to the workplace now - the Labor Party has a strong position on paid maternity leave. There was a report over the weekend with the Small Business Minister Joe Hockey supporting tax deductibility for child care. Is that something that the Labor Party would consider or be interested in?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: The reason we've rejected that approach is that it's fine for people who are high income-earners, because, obviously, if they get a tax deduction on 48 cents in the dollar, or the highest rate at least, they are far better off than someone who's on $22,000 a year. We prefer our tax credit arrangement where families are assisted by the number of children they have and their income. We think that's far more equitable to assist working women to balance family and working lives. The tax deductibility at first glance seems attractive, but not when you consider that it would very much be distorted as a benefit to high income-earners rather than ordinary Australians.

KATHARINE MURPHY: It would be a lot easier for employers though, wouldn't it?

VIVIAN SCHENKER: Particularly small business employers.

ROBERT McCLELLAND: Look, we're not proposing that small business funds the maternity leave concept that we have, so they won't be concerned either way with that issue, nor will they be concerned in a tax credit arrangement. So I don't think that is a concern there.

GREG TURNBULL: Finally, Mr McClelland, Parliament resumes tomorrow. The last time Parliament sat we had a bit of a bloodbath. There was a queue of Labor MPs to exit, expelled by Speaker Neil Andrew. There's been a lot of talk about parliamentary reform. When you go back into the pit tomorrow are we expecting things to be toned down a bit in the wake of all that publicity?

ROBERT McCLELLAND: I would like to think that we get a bit of balance back into the equation. The standing orders, I think, are questionable. I would like to see we get some productive debate, rather than personality.

GREG TURNBULL: That's where we'll leave it. Robert McClelland, thanks very much. We're out of time. Our guest today was Shadow Attorney-General Robert McClelland. Our panel was Vivian Schenker of Radio National 'Breakfast'. and Katharine Murphy, the 'Australian Financial Review'. Until next week, it's goodbye from Meet the Press.