E&OE TRANSCRIPT 
DOORSTOP
MELBOURNE
SATURDAY, 20 APRIL 2019
 
SUBJECTS: Penalty rates, wages, climate change policies, death tax scare campaign, $80 million government water purchase, government’s cystic fibrosis announcement.

JOSH BURNS, LABOR CANDIDATE FOR MACNAMARA: Welcome to sunny St Kilda, there is nothing better than a sunny day in St Kilda. My name is Josh Burns and I am the Labor candidate for Macnamara and it is my pleasure to introduce and welcome Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and of course Brendan O'Connor the Shadow Minister for Workplace Relations and Employment here today. St Kilda is the heart of hospitality here in Melbourne. It is a place where thousands of people come to enjoy the best of what Melbourne has got to offer. But it is also the place where thousands of people work and being the heart of hospitality it has been the heart of penalty rate cuts. That's why it is so important to be here today to talk about how the Labor Party once again is going to be relied on to stand by working people. So with that I am going to introduce the Leader of the Labor Party, Bill Shorten, to say a few words.
 
BILL SHORTEN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Thanks, that was Josh Burns, Labor's candidate for Macnamara. First of all it is great, on an Easter Saturday to be with my family at Luna Park. This is an icon. It’s been continuously in operation for 107 years. What that also reminds me is that all of us over this Easter break are very lucky to have people turning up to work. People who serve us our meals in the hotels, people who look after our rooms in our accommodation if we are travelling away from home. The people indeed who provide the pharmacy work and the shops, the things which we take for granted. Right around Australia there are millions of people working had so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves. That is why we should keep paying people their penalty rates and not arbitrarily cut them. It has been estimated that over this 10 day Easter break, Anzac Day period the workers who have had their penalty rates cut will be losing, in this 10 day period, between $220 and $370 depending which award they are covered by. This is hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians who are working over this 10 day period have literally had up to $370 cut from their pay. This government could have changed that. Not only does this government cut funding to schools, not only does this government cut funding to hospitals, but they also, to show how callous they are, have acquiesced in the cutting of penalty rates. On eight occasions Labor put to the government in a vote, let’s restore the cuts to penalty rates. Eight times Mr Morrison and his team of cutters supported the cuts to penalty rates for the lowest paid workers, young workers, women workers. This is a government that not only doesn’t get it, it just doesn’t care. The finance services minister Mr Cormann put his hand up and he said we support the low wages architecture of Australia. They support cutting penalty rates. Well, there couldn't be a clearer choice in this election. I've said previously this election is an election, it is a referendum on wages. Everything is going up in Australia except people's wages. And the rot stops when we reverse the cuts to penalty rates. We, at our very first piece of legislation, if we get elected, will be to restore the cuts, to replace the cuts, to return the penalty rates back to the workers of Australia. That's what we're going to do first off. We’ve got a plan for wages. All Mr Morrison has is a plan for cuts. Cuts to schools, cuts to hospitals and perhaps worst of all, cuts to people's penalty rates. I would now like to hand over to Brendan O'Connor to talk further about our wages policy, our plan for a fair go for wages, then take questions.

BRENDAN O’CONNOR, SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS: Thanks, Bill. As Bill made clear, this is a priority for an incoming Labor government if we're elected. What we have seen in recent years is the lowest wage growth on record, presided over by Scott Morrison and the Liberals. The lowest wage growth on record. Everything going up except for wages and yet the government, Scott Morrison, wants to see further cuts to penalty rates. So, let's be very clear. Since the decision was made by the Fair Work Commission, Labor responded by introducing a private member’s bill, moved by Bill Shorten, into the  parliament allowing the government to support our position in order to restore those penalty rates for hundreds of thousands of retail and hospitality workers who are doing it tough. They're already doing it tough as I say because it is the lowest wage growth on record, but imagine this - imagine you're in a time of the lowest wage growth on record and you have a government voting eight times to cut pay from hard-working, modestly paid, retail, hospitality, pharmacy workers. It is just really unacceptable. It's fundamentally unfair and only Labor will restore those wages. Restore those penalty rates for those workers. And let's be very clear here. We've had cuts since the 1st of July 2017. We had cuts last year. We will have cuts July 1 this year and the year after that if we don't see a change of government. That's why it is critical people think long and hard. As Bill Shorten has made clear, this election, as much as anything, is a referendum on wages and only Labor will restore those penalty rates and restore people's wages and allow them to make ends meet and get by well.

SHORTEN: Thanks, Brendan. Are there questions?
 
JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, the Commission was set up for a reason. Is it right for any government of the day to be able to overturn a decision that came from the Fair Work Commission? 

SHORTEN: Our position is not taken lightly. We respect the independent umpire, but they got this one wrong. We live in an era of wage stagnation. Australians under this government are going through the longest, lowest period of wages growth since we were keeping records 60 years ago. So as a general rule, you don't want to interfere with the independent umpire's decision, but they got this one wrong. Of course, it is not without precedent. The independent umpire famously got it wrong when they didn't support the introduction of award based superannuation. So, there was no guaranteed minimum super. And indeed, Paul Keating and Bob Hawke stepped in to create universal superannuation as a result. So, whilst what we're doing is as a last  resort, it is not without precedent. But let's look at what this really means. Penalty rates are not a luxury. There's two ways that low paid workers get paid for working the inconvenient hours. Either through a system of penalty rates or tips. Do we really want to go down the American path of workplace relations where a worker, to make, an adult, to make ends meet has to rely on tips and charity and the coins and dollar notes left on the table after the guest has gone? That is not the Australian way. Let's also remember when we talk about penalty rates - the people who get penalty rates by and large are on 30 and 40 and $50,000 a year. Every dollar they get, they spend. And it was promised if you cut penalty rates there would be this new golden era of job creation. Well the University of Wollongong studied this. And we haven't seen an explosion in new jobs. What we have just seen is working people getting the rough end of the stick.

JOURNALIST: Warwick McKibbin who you pinned your climate change costings on last week, he came out today and said that you are wrong to say that international permits can alleviate the cost of your policy because the future of them is too uncertain. Does this put one big hole in your policy?

SHORTEN: No. Listen, I will tell you what we pin our climate change policies on - the best science. I mean, I noticed that some parts of what McKibbin says are selectively quoted by particular newspapers. But he also said, buried in that story, which you didn't go to your question, he said the Morrison government plan would be very expensive. And in yesterday's story, on the Daily Telegraph, he said the cost which The Telegraph trumpeted was a back of the envelope number. Or as we now call it the front of the Telegraph number! Either way the problem that this government has is what they call cost, I call investing. I call investing – like many companies do – in new technology and new opportunities. What this government call cost, I call protecting the future for the kids and the next generation. This government ....

JOURNALIST: [inaudible]

SHORTEN: ... the government is obsessed about particular micro propositions. Let's go to the big picture here. Because the big picture is where a nation should be directed towards. The big picture here is at what cost does this government think it’s too expensive to save the planet? Our research is based upon not just the best science, it is also based on consultations with industry. The Business Council of Australia, the business groups, they're the ones who say it makes sense to use international permits. This government used to believe in it. Can we just, we don't suffer from amnesia in this country, so why is it the government thinks we do? Prime Minister Morrison was Treasurer Morrison and when he came up from air from cutting schools and hospitals, he used to back a National Energy Guarantee. Now he doesn't.
 
JOURNALIST:  Why didn't you speak to McKibbin before you reference this report last week? This is what you based your costings on last week and he said you haven't spoken to him about this 4-year-old report?
 
BILL SHORTEN: First of all, the McKibbin report is publicly available, and of course we’ve relied upon it in part, but let's also go further here. You all know what the government's doing. This has been a ten year torture on climate change, where the climate has got worse, the extreme weather events have got worse, and this government is still trying to delay and discourage. Here is a bet, here’s a bet I'll make you. Future generations are going to despise the politicians right now who refuse to take action on climate change.
 
JOURNALIST: Will you rule out a death tax?
 
BILL SHORTEN:  Yes. I was in Proserpine in January, doing one of my many visits to regional Queensland and after, I forget which particular scare campaign the government had whistled up, I said I bet you this government is so desperate, they will try and create a ridiculous death tax scare. Well, you know, truth imitates our press conferences there. They did exactly that. It is a lie. It is a lie. It is a lie. And I think the Liberal Party need to be ashamed of themselves using low rent, American-style fake news which is actually a lie and then trying to scare different communities in Australia.
 
JOURNALIST: What can you tell us about the $80 million water sale, that has hit headlines this week? Do you have concerns about that purchase that the government made and if so, what are those concerns or what are the questions that you have?
 
BILL SHORTEN: This water scandal is really, really, really starting to come to light, isn't it? This was the nation's biggest water purchase, the most expensive water purchase and now we're seeing question marks about the probity of it. You have got the particular minister, Mr Taylor. You know, he used to make a living from working with this company, goes into parliament and then the company gets a super contract. A lot more questions to answer here. And by the way, why this is relevant to the Australian people is this is a lot of taxpayer money. Probity questions as far as the eye can see. But even more importantly than that, our river system is stuffed and it is stuffed because this is a government who hasn't had a plan to look after the whole of the river basin. It has played favourites. It has pursued particular commercial agendas, and as a result, Australia's mighty Murray-Darling is on the critical list. This is the problem. That's why we should have a national anti-corruption commission too.
 
JOURNALIST: So Mr. Shorten, be specific. What does the Prime Minister need do with regard to the water problem right now in the middle of an election campaign to set it right? What can, and should, he do?
 
BILL SHORTEN: Produce all the documents. All the documents. You have got to answer: is this the right process? I think I would be interested to hear if Mr Turnbull, former Prime Minister Turnbull, knew what his ministers were doing or whether or not they were going rogue? I do think that this is an inquiry which today the Prime Minister needs to say one thing: is he completely confident that everything is above board? Is he going to stake his reputation on whether or not all of these matters have been done above board? And if he is, then he needs to come clean with all of the detail.
 
JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, costs on your emission reduction target, you said you have spoken about the government and you said it was going to be very large. It can only make sense by reason that your target is much higher than the government's, so that it must be larger, and those costs are going to go passed on to companies who have to buy carbon credits, and those costs are then going to be passed on to consumers. Why can't you say what the dollar figure is, that businesses are going to be asked to pay when it comes to buying those credits, so that consumers can understand what it is going to cost them. Can you give us a single figure on what it is going to cost, sir?
 
SHORTEN: Well first of all, when we talk about this, the assumption in your question wasn’t correct. What you said there is you compared their policy and ours. But the costing even done by McKibbin acknowledges that the government's policy doesn't take into account the use of international credit offsets, whereas ours does. So we are comparing different propositions. In terms of ours, we're very clear: our policy will not cost the taxpayer. The current government is paying billions of dollars in an emissions reduction fund.
 
JOURNALIST: [inaudible}
 
SHORTEN: No, I am explaining it. To take it through, the emissions reduction fund of the government means your taxes, my taxes, everyone's taxes, get used to pay big polluters not to pollute. That is a clear cost. We are not raising a tax, we are not seeking to spend taxpayer money to pay big emitters not to emit. In terms of business, our cost is comparable to the government's. We are using the same approach of industrial safeguards. And we are allowing businesses, and we are going to support the trade-exposed sector, so we do have $300 million which we are contributing to help cement and steel and aluminium, and other emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries.
 
JOURNALIST: It’s not an answer, do you have a figure as to what it’s going to cost for businesses, who will pass that cost onto consumers? Because there has to be a dollar figure.
 
SHORTEN: We know that this doesn’t happen now, because we are using the same system the Government use. The Government actually have in place, you are probably aware, a system where if you emit more than a certain number of tonnes of carbon pollution into the air, the government has … the companies have to pay for that. The way that companies are defraying that is by investing in new technology, they are better at measuring what they do. What that consequentially means is we are using the same system, so of course over time, as companies reduce their carbon emissions, the cost to companies goes down. But every company has got a different story; every company has a different approach to doing it. So there is no one mythical figure. The point about it is, that we either tackle climate change or we don’t. The problem with answering your question is simply this: your question makes no allowance for the impact of climate change. How much do you offset the cost of getting a company to stop polluting the environment against the cost of extreme weather events. Your question is only part of the equation.
 
JOURNALIST:  But do you concede that that cost would be passed on to consumers?
 
SHORTEN: Well I think that the cost of climate change is now being passed onto consumers.
 
JOURNALIST: But it is going to be much bigger.
 
SHORTEN: Well no, that’s where we fundamentally disagree. What I disagree with is simply this, and then we will move on. When you have a terrible climate event, that cost gets passed on. When you have energy bills going up under the current government, because we don’t have a policy, that cost gets passed on. I agree with Mr Turnbull and what Mr Morrison said back in 2017, a National Energy Guarantee makes sense, and that will actually improve household bills by $550.
 
JOURNALIST: Will you pursue the NEG in government if the opposition is opposed to it …
 
SHORTEN: Yeah, we think that that’s a good framework. The reason why we’ll pursue the National Energy Guarantee is I think Australians are over climate change wars. I know that government loves to pound out its scare campaign, but what scares Australians more is not dealing with climate change. So what we’ll do is we’ll use some of the Turnbull, Morrison, Frydenberg architecture, and we will work with that structure. I’d be amazed if the opposition, the Liberals if they lose the election, that they’ll continue to oppose climate change. The good news is that if Labor wins the election, I think we can put to an end the toxic climate change debate, we can prove that this nation is ready to adopt new technology, embrace more new jobs, create economic growth and lower power prices.
 
JOURNALIST: If we can keep on climate change for just a little bit longer, you have dismissed the $25 billion figure and the $60 billion dollar figure that was put out; you say that the Government’s policies are going to be expensive. So you have looked at the economic cost and not necessarily the cost-benefit analysis, but just the cost of certain policies. The benefit is quite a way away. Do you know just the cost to the economy, not to the government and not to taxpayers coffers, on businesses, on the economy of your policies.
 
SHORTEN: Our policies will be a net benefit for the economy. We believe that if you invest in making climate change changes now, and lowering carbon pollution, this will benefit the economy. I don’t accept that acting on climate change has a cost. I believe not acting on climate change has a cost. You’re looking at some of the inputs, I’m looking at what we get for the end of the process.
 
JOURNALIST: $165 million dollars today on health expenditure, in regional Australia and in Westmead Hospital in Sydney Mr Shorten, not from Labor, but from the Prime Minister. Having gone so hard on health for so long in this campaign, you’d applaud that wouldn’t you?
 
SHORTEN: Well, on the cystic fibrosis announcement, absolutely. We’re very supportive of that. CF is a dreadful disease. But in terms of the Government announcing $100 million dollars on cancer, I remember the last two weeks. This government has viciously attacked me for trying to tackle the out of pocket costs of cancer. Now what this government has done is belatedly realise cancer is real issue in the community. Individually they may have known it, but collectively as a government, the current prime minister got out there and day after day attacked me for wanting to reduce the out of pocket costs of cancer treatment. It’s good that they’re going to do some more in the regions. After all, Labor said we’re going to put $250 million dollars into reducing waiting lists, $500 million into tackling public hospital cancer support and we have put a total package of $2.3 billion into tackling cancer over the next four years. The government can’t have it both ways. They can’t say on one hand that we’re stupid to be tackling cancer, and then on the other hand, expect a whole bunch of flowers for doing 1/25th of what we’re doing.
 
JOURNALIST:  What questions do say that government needs to answer over the $80 million dollar water deal?
 
SHORTEN: First question is, is the prime minister satisfied with the probity of all the decisions. And if he is, will he agree to an audit, or a commission of enquiry, to demonstrate that the questions being raised are not valid. He needs to come clean. He needs to say does he 100 per cent guarantee Barnaby Joyce’s actions? Does he 100 per cent guarantee everything Angus Taylor did? And if he does, he needs to demonstrate to the public why he is so confident in these matters. In terms of just finishing this up, Tim made a point. Yes, where the government does something good on health, I’m going to back it in. It’s a shame the government doesn’t have the shame view towards us, the same commitment. But that’s the sort of prime minister I’ll be. Where someone else has a good idea, I’ll back it in. The National Energy Guarantee. Don’t think it was perfect, but I think people are sick of the us versus them rubbish which masquerades as Australian politics. On health care, cystic fibrosis, tick. But why won’t the Prime Minister back in our $2.3 billion commitment on cancer? Why won’t he back in our reductions to waiting lists today? Newspapers are reporting that waiting lists have blown out under this government. I’ll tell you why waiting lists have blown out. Because the prime minister of Australia is the cutter in chief. The cutter of health funding, the cutter of education funding, the cutter of penalty rates. The Australian people want fair dinkum plans for the future not cuts, cuts and cuts and not too little, too late. Thank you everybody.

ENDS