November 22, 2022
Tuesday 22 November 2022
Sky News AM Agenda
Subjects: Industrial relations, Kevin Rudd’s China speech
Peter Stefanovic:
Peter Khalil and the Liberal Senator James Paterson. Good morning, gentlemen. Peter, I will start with you. New data out this morning forecasting 56,000 businesses to be hit with industrial mayhem, involving businesses between 15 and 200 staff. Are you - Do you accept that figure?
Peter Khalil:
No. Well, look, first of all. Angus Taylor is like Chicken Little, you know, the sky is going to fall in because some Australian wage earners are going to get an increase in wages after nine years of wage wages being suppressed in the economy by their own policies, by the Liberal Party's policies. Lets have a bit of a fact check here. What the Opposition doesn't tell you about those numbers is that many businesses, many small businesses already pay their workers above award rates because they value their workers. That's what small businesses are about. And the fact the fact is that the bill itself has a section in there which allows individual workforces to vote to opt out of any multi-employer bargaining. Multi-employer bargaining already exists. This is about making it work better. And frankly the reason we are committed to this is the Australian Labor Party went to the election saying we're going to get wages moving again. We backed in a 5% increase in the minimum wage through the Fair Work Commission, and a 15% increase for aged care workers, a feminised workforce. The gender pay gap, getting that closed. We’re continuing that commitment because by June, as millions of Australians want their wages moving again, cost of living pressures are real. It might not be so important for the Liberal Party, who don't want to back workers, but we back workers and we've backed millions of Australians who, you know, need their wages moving again.
Peter Stefanovic:
Okay, James, will it really be industrial mayhem or is that a bit dramatic?
James Paterson:
Everyone wants to see higher wages for Australians. Nothing is more deserved, particularly in the face of the very high inflation that families are facing. But what we don't want to see is more strikes and a return to the 1970s, 1980s style workplace, where union activity and intimidation shut down many Australian workplaces and make doing business in this country very difficult. And as a result of that, 30 years of industrial relations reform removed what used to be called pattern bargaining, which the government is now trying to reintroduce in the form of multi-employer bargaining. Peter talks about what they took to the election. Well, one thing they didn't take to the election was multi-employer bargaining. If it was such a great idea why didn't they tell the Australian people about it only six months ago when they took a policy to the election?
But they didn't take this to the election because Australians would have understood that this would have increased union power and dominance in the workplace in a time in which it is just not relevant for most Australian workers and most Australians…
Peter Khalil [Interrupts]:
Not relevant?
James Paterson:
…Representing less than 10% of workers.
Peter Khalil:
So let me get this straight. Wages, which have been suppressed for years, are not relevant to millions of Australian workers? You’re usually pretty good on the facts.
James Paterson:
Thanks Peter. But I said the opposite. I said unions are no longer relevant for most Australian workers. They represent less than 10% of workers.
Peter Khalil:
Unions represent workers and workers rights and that's an important part of our civic society. And I would just say this multi-employer bargaining already existed under your government. It was in the act. But what we're doing is we are improving it. We're making sure that we can get wages moving again. This is about wage earners who have had their wages suppressed for nine years, literally nine years, and policies by the previous government contributed to that suppression. And by the way, Angus Taylor going on about cost of living pressures – the gall. I mean, seriously, you know, the cost of living pressures are real for millions of Australians. Wages increasing and getting wages moving actually addresses that. The inflationary pressure is coming from the war in Ukraine and prices are constraining supply chains. There's no evidence whatsoever that wages increasing will have that impact.
Peter Stefanovic:
But we are starting to see green shoots on that point, though. So is there a need to actually change anything if we're starting to see some momentum now on wages?
James Paterson:
Well, the Reserve Bank governor has said very clearly he is concerned if we get into wages-prices spiral where we try and chase higher prices with higher wages, which then feeds into permanently higher prices, that would be very dangerous for our economy, it’s the last thing we want to see. But we need our wages to increase based on productivity increases and nothing in this act is going to make the Australian workplace more productive. In fact, it's going to do the opposite because it's going to return to higher strikes and more industrial disputes in the workplace. And we know that's toxic.
Peter Khalil:
There's no evidence for that.
Peter Stefanovic:
Just on that point that there James. I mean, do you have faith that the Fair Work Commission will be able to able to arbitrate and stop that from happening?
James Paterson:
Well, even if the Fair Work Commission does its job perfectly, if it's dealing with more arbitration and more disputes and more union activity, that is going to slow down our industrial relations system, that is going to gum-up the system and is going to affect workplace productivity. We've seen this story many times before. When you have more strikes, you have less productivity. It is a 1 to 1 relationship. And if that's what we see out of this legislation, which I believe we will, then we will rue the day that we agree to it.
Peter Khalil:
But I just I reject the premise of both the question and part of the answer that there is an assumption that there's going to be an increase in industrial disputes, the numbers that have been flying around when there is another story that Australia's had, we saw it in the eighties as well where employers and employees can work effectively together, increase productivity and get wages moving. Alright, so multiple employer bargaining already exists. We're refining it. We’re making it better, we’re giving opt outs for individual workforces who, you know, they may have already got their increases above the award rate. They don't want to be involved in that particular bargaining as well. They can vote to stay out of it. There's a lot of catastrophizing by the government,there's a lot of hyperbole.
Peter Stefanovic:
But It's not just the government, the businesses out there are legitimately concerned, particularly small businesses.
James Paterson:
Every employer group in this country thinks this is a bad idea.
Peter Khalil:
I saw the food. Some of the reporting around from representatives of the food industry and so on. You know what? It was really interesting because in the in the story, it also said, oh, a lot of these businesses are already paying above award rates. Small businesses, small businesses, you know, value their workers. They do pay them that. It's part of the family. You know, if you talk to your small business, I don’t know if James does in his local area, but you talk to them. It is like a family. It's important. They value their workers. Sometimes they pay an award rate. In fact, lots of small businesses I talk to are doing that as well. So I think that the catastrophizing that's coming from the government is a bit Chicken Little, you know, the sky is going to fall in. Instead of assuming that employers and employees can work constructively and bargain to get good outcomes for their workers. They're going straight to worst case scenario, which is unlikely.
Peter Stefanovic:
Okay, just a final one here. We're running out of time, James. But James, I do want to ask you. Kevin Rudd, he's claimed in a speech overnight that we could be at war with China by the end of the decade unless growing strategic tensions are managed. Now, you know. Kevin Rudd, he does know China better than most. Is he accurate?
James Paterson:
Look, it's a very sobering warning from Dr. Rudd and I think we should listen to it carefully, particularly because Kevin Rudd only a few years ago was attacking others for saying the same thing. Memorably in August 2019 he launched a pretty personal attack on Andrew Hastie and by implication, others like me who have been warning about the strategic risks posed to our region by a rising and more assertive China. He said we were being irresponsible and neither of us talked about a five or ten year deadline, which he's now talked about. So if he's come around to our world view and he now shares that world view and wants to warn the Australian people about that, then I welcome that because I think we've got to deal with the world as it is, not as what we wish it to be.
Peter Stefanovic:
Okay. A thought from you, Peter on that point? I mean, despite all the G20 pleasantries, is this proof that we still need to be careful moving forward?
Peter Khalil:
I didn't know he was a Dr. Rudd now, but anyway, Dr. Rudd's points were valid in and around the point that we need to maintain some sort of managed strategic competition. Everything that we do, whether it's in diplomacy, defence, develop assistance. You know, the three D’s of statecraft is aimed at deterring state actors, whether it be China or others or non-state actors, from diminishing the international rules based order and moving towards confrontation and conflict and defence capability is a very important part of that, diplomacy's a part of that. But on China's point, I think the criticism that Dr. Rudd made was that there was a lot of chest beating by the Opposition, a lot of, you know, bellicose remarks, which wasn't effective. We’re practising a much more nuanced diplomacy. It's part of those three D’s to try and reduce tensions, to try and deter others from using force and moving towards from competition to conflict. And that is the objective. And it's in our national interest to do so. It's not in our national interest to have been talking up in the way that the previous government was conflict and so on because it actually adds to tension.
Peter Stefanovic:
We will leave it there gents. I was surprised by that too, a couple of days ago when I saw that he's now Dr. Rudd, but it's happened somewhere along the way. But there you go.
James Paterson:
You should read his PhD. It's on Xi Jinping thought.
Peter Stefanovic:
There you go. James, Peter nice and lively this morning, I love to see it. Thanks.
ENDS
