RICHARD GLOVER, HOST: ABC Radio Sydney. Richard Glover with you on Drive. The Monday political forum in session. Tim Ayres is a Labor Senator for New South Wales and Assistant Minister for Trade and Manufacturing, and he joins us on the line. Tim, good afternoon.
SENATOR TIM AYRES, ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING: G'day, Richard, glad to be on the show.
GLOVER: And with me in the studio is Professor Andy Marks, Pro Vice Chancellor of Western Sydney University and Executive Director of the Center for Western Sydney. Welcome.
ANDY MARKS: Thank you very much.
GLOVER: And on some other line from somewhere else is Jacqui Munro, New South Wales, Liberal MLC, Jacqui, good afternoon.
JACQUI MUNRO: Good afternoon. Great to be here.
GLOVER: Let's start at the obvious place. Biden pulls the plug and endorses his VP. Did he make the right decision? From the point of view of the Democrats, will America vote in a female president who was also a person of color? And do Republicans have a point when they say, if he's not fit to stand for election, he should immediately stand down as President? Andy Marks.
MARKS: Richard, the rule book's been thrown out. I think we've gotten so used to this election providing surprises that it's really hard to predict what's going to happen. You know, I'm hoping, actually, that we'll see the first democratic convention that actually works to elect a candidate. The last time I read it was 1968 so otherwise it's been a foregone conclusion.
GLOVER: But do the Democrats really want to do that to themselves? It does sound as if there's a mood today to.... and we don't know yet, but there are a lot of people looking like they're lining up behind her.
MARKS: Look, it would be a really good point of contrast, and it would be a reminder that this is a process. But I think it's too late in the day. I do think that they're going to try and settle on Harris, but, geez, I, part of me, would love to see it, because you want this to become a contest of ideas, not insanity.
GLOVER: You know, we were just talking about the Hawke example from 1983 where I think there's a sense the Labor Party, by changing leader right at the last minute, terribly unfair to poor old Bill Hadyen....a drover’s dog election... Hawke goes on to win in a landslide, and maybe with the brevity of the campaign and the headlines and the surprise and the sense of, oh boy, there's a whole new candidate here. Maybe that helped them.
MARKS: Yeah, some of that, when you have a sort of a candidate come in that quickly, it can be like a sort of cold bucket of water, right? It can really enliven the race, and I think it can actually produce that contrast that they’ve really lacked. So, yeah, look, it could be a Hawke moment. But American politics, it's deviated so much from the norms that you just don't know and no polling is reliable.
GLOVER: Yeah, that's right. Jacqui Monroe, what do you make of some people say; Look, she's a perfect candidate to really exercise the main Democrat point of view, point of difference, which is the abortion laws. Other people say no, well, fair or unfair, she's a woman and she's a person of color. The Americans aren't going to elect a person like that as President.
MUNRO: Well, I think the American people obviously have to be enlivened to vote for somebody. That's the first barrier. Unlike Australia, of course, where we have compulsory voting, or at least compulsory showing up. The American system means that they have to get people out to the polling booths in the first place, so that naturally has meant that more extreme views are starting to percolate and become more mainstream, I suppose. And you've got a really enlivened base on the Republican side, and they're very motivated, certainly since the assassination attempt, to feel like there's so much at stake with who they might be supporting. And I think the Democrats really have a challenge in making people feel that sense that there is a leader that they have that will go the distance, that has the right experience, and Kamala Harris is an obvious choice. I mean, I think it would be very difficult to go to anybody else, although I do note that in the betting odds, Michelle Obama is going reasonably well. I'm not sure that she's been asked or whether she's declined, but the reality is that for the Democratic Party, they really need to rally very quickly behind someone, and the obvious choice is Harris. They can't really spend too much time in-fighting about this. It's just there isn't enough time until the election in November.
GLOVER: Did Biden do the right thing? I mean, it must have caused him an immense personal anguish, but, but was it the right thing for himself, for his party, for the country?
MUNRO: Well, I think Nancy Pelosi was very diplomatic when she suggested a couple of days ago, maybe a week ago now - a week’s a long time in politics - she said that Biden had some difficult choices to make, very diplomatically. And I think that the choice was inevitable, and to be honest, not many leaders have the dignity, if that's what this is, of being able to bow out in some graceful manner rather than being chucked out by the people. So, you've got to take it for what it is. Joe Biden has been the president and the United States of America. It's a huge job, and he's now done the right thing for his people, for the country and probably for the world.
GLOVER: Do you go along with that, Tim Ayres?
AYRES: Everything Jacqui said, I just reflect on this moment. Fifty years where President Biden has been such a substantial figure in American politics. He was thirty when he was elected. He was told that he was too young for political office. He was thirty. In fact, he turned thirty after he was elected, just in time to qualify. He was elected when Richard Nixon was the President of the United States, he's been a substantial figure. And I have to say he's been a good friend of Australia. I know that the Prime Minister has enjoyed working with him, that they've got a close relationship. He has been a substantial president, a substantial figure, and of course, as a member of the government, I don't want to make a commentary on what's happening in the United States politics, as spectacular as it sometimes is, but just make the observation that he's had a pretty profound effect on American politics over a 50 year long career.
GLOVER: Kamala Harris also be a friend of Australia, if indeed she does get the nomination and then gets a presidency.
AYRES: Well, I'm sure that's true. I mean, the Government, of course, our responsibility is to work with whoever the American people elect. So the a reason for not offering a commentary on the ins and outs of what's going on in American politics, is because our job as the Government is to put the Australian interest first, and that involves building a constructive and close relationship with our partners in the United States, but also making sure that we are very clear about asserting Australia's national interest. That's the job of Government, and that's why some of us are a bit circumspect about some of these American political developments.
GLOVER: It is going to be more difficult if Trump is President, if he has a real trade war with China? Well, that's our number one trading partner, right?
AYRES: Well, our job as the Government, is to assert Australia's national interest publicly and privately, and do it in a way that is calculated to achieve the best outcome for Australia and Australians. And that does mean, you know, not offering a sort of political commentary on these sorts of questions. It's our job, Richard, we're serious about it. You know, some of the political polarization that Jacqui’s observed, you know, we believe, as a Government, it's not in Australia's interest to engage that kind of polarization in Australia, we're very fortunate to have the democracy that we have. And you know that means we approach some of these issues differently.
GLOVER: Well, that's right. Tim Ayres is with us - Labor senator for New South Wales. He's Assistant Minister for Trade and Manufacturing, Professor Andy marks from the Western Sydney University and Liberal MLC, Jacqui Munro. Now, Bill Kelty, secretary of the ACTU back in the 80s and 90s, has backed the Government's plans to suspend the CFMEU following allegations that it has been infiltrated by criminals and bikeies. He says an administrator is essential, not to threaten unionism, but to protect unionism. The Opposition, meanwhile, goes further and says the union should be deregistered, as was done by the Hawke government to the BLF [Builders Labourers Federation], the building union of that time. What do you think? What do you think should happen now? Tim, I might come to you first on this, because you were state secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union before you entered politics. So, you know this world of unions and governments. Well, have you been shocked by what you've read about the CFMEU?
AYRES: Well, I've certainly been shocked by the recent revelations, specific allegations of criminal behavior. And as you say, before I was elected to Parliament, I worked in the trade union movement, including in leadership roles in and in construction, you know, I knew the construction industry, you know very well. And I think Bill Kelty's, you know, he's always got a good turn of phrase, Bill, and he's got this one right as well. This administration is the right thing to do for the construction industry, but it's also the right thing to do for construction unionism. I certainly believe that there's nothing wrong, and everything right about tough, effective trade unionism, particularly in industries where, you know, these are tough industries in construction, safety is really important. There's a disaggregation of employers. You know, the many multiple employers, protecting good wages and conditions for construction workers is vital, but corruption and poor governance are absolutely unacceptable. They've caused shame to that union, but also you've seen Sally McManus’ comments and the determination of the union movement more broadly, to disassociate itself from that. I support these administration arrangements because they're the right thing for the construction industry, I want to see more cooperation, not less in the construction sector.
GLOVER: Why not deregister them as, as you know, Hawke, from your side of politics, did to the BLF?
AYRES: Well, number one, deregistration is not a serious option, because there is no other trade union in construction with the same coverage. So, in 1986 I think it was, the Hawke Government deregistered the BLF because there were serious allegations. Ultimately, Norm Gallagher went to prison, serious allegations, and Hawke acted. There were other unions, the building workers, industrial union and others in construction. Secondly, most importantly, though, administration is the stronger tool. It offers more levers. it will bring about behavioral change. Will bring about cultural change. Will fix the governance questions. You go for the deregistration option if you're after the easy route and a cheap headline. You go the administration route if it's the hard road, but the road that's going to lead to a better outcome for the construction industry, for construction workers, better for projects. And ultimately, as Bill Kelty has said, means that what we're left with is effective trade unionism and the construction sector that's not sullied by these, you know, I mean, terrible, terrible allegations, criminal charges and other matters that just can't be accepted.
GLOVER: You’re listening to Tim as Labor Senator for New South Wales. Jacqui Munro, do you go along with that?
MUNRO: Well, I think it's pretty soft. What we've heard over the last week is essentially that it's an open secret that the CFMEU is filled with a level of corruption and crime, and that, even though that has been known, premiers have not acted, and in that process, Political MPs, Labor MPs have been pre-selected and then elected into parliaments. The reality is that union membership is at 12.5% of the population. And when you think about something like the construction industry and the kind of behavior that we've heard, who knows how many of those members in the CFMEU are actually genuine members who have a desire to go out and ask for help or support from a union, rather than being forced into membership by some unsavory means, and that's the problem that we're dealing with. There's so much unsavory behavior that the idea that you could go in and try to weed it all out is just not good enough. It's going to take such a long time, maybe it's not even possible. What needs to happen is something to start from scratch. I think unions have a place in Australia. There's no doubt about that. But they are for people who have willingly gone to put a membership form in with their union for help and support. The Labor Party and the unions, let's be clear, the relationship there, the Labor Party is the political wing of the union movement, not the other way around. The unions make up 50% of Labor's conference floor. That means that they get a massive say, half of the say of candidates, of the results of elections within the party of policy motions. That's a huge amount of power that unions wield, and that includes the CFMEU, and this behavior has been allowed to go on for years and years with the knowledge of senior Labor leaders. So to say that you just have to put in an administrator and that will be enough to just gently massage this problem away is it's simply not good enough.
GLOVER: Before I go to Andy marks, Tim Ayres, do you want to just come back on that and the, as Jacqui expressed, domination of the unions of the Labor Party?
AYRES: Well, two points. Number one. CFMEU has no influence, being that their [party] membership has been suspended. That is in terms of the party organization. I don't want to spend too much time on this question, because the real issue here is fixing the construction industry, tough action in terms of administration. But secondly, this is one of the important differences between the Labor Party and the other political parties. The trade union movement is an important part of Australian democracy. Union membership leads to higher wages, better safety, higher productivity, fairer workplaces, and more cooperation at work,
GLOVER: although, as Jacqui was arguing, people in a sense of voting with their feet, the level of union membership is so low now...
AYRES: For perhaps my opponents in the Liberal Party, a smaller union membership is something to be celebrated. I just say that it leads to better national outcomes, higher wages. Union members are paid more than people who work in non-union workplaces. There are very strong reasons to encourage, including productivity and cooperation reasons, and that's why the Albanese Government, our approach is not to wander around the country looking for an argument between unions and business, but to encourage cooperation and better outcomes for Australians. That's what we're doing here. We're taking tough action in relation to the CFMEU. It would be the easiest thing in the world to go down the sort of cheap headline, the short route, the one that Peter Dutton and others want, which is the de-registration option. Administration is harder, tougher, will take a very long time, but will have the right outcome in the end, for the industry and for workers.
GLOVER: Professor Andy Marks, how do you read it?
MARKS: Richard, I think we just got to be really careful not to conflate, you know, an incidence of very serious, serious wrongdoing with an entire section sector. I mean, the union movement is the movement that produced fair pay, produced us paid leave, all of those rights that were very hard won. The other thing is, you know, that's we have ICAC for political corruption, and we have ASIC for corporate corruption. The union movements, when corruption is found to be occurring, should be treated no differently, but it's an important movement, especially for low paid workers who have no other representation.
GLOVER: All right, we're listening to; Professor Andy marks, Pro Vice Chancellor of Western Sydney University and Executive Director of the Center for Western Sydney; Tim Ayres, Labor Senator for New South Wales and Assistant Minister for Trade and Manufacturing; and New South Wales Liberal MLC. Jacqui Munro, on the Monday political Forum.
Now the $50,000 arts degree is about to arrive according to data from the Federal Education Department. It confirms student contributions to degrees like society and culture, communications, law and economics will rise by almost $17,000 annually from 2025. That means an arts degree will cost you something like $50,000. The price of an arts degree started growing under the Morrison government, that's true, but it does seem to show no signs of slowing. We all know the importance of STEM subjects, but don't we need the skills of arts degrees as well. I'm asking, as a history graduate, Andy, will you support me into thinking I didn't waste my time?
MARKS: Richard, the world needs more poets, more history graduates. Look, I think that this is a fundamental problem for Australian universities and the Labor Government. I think has let this go on a little bit too long. They made very strong overtures prior to the election about the great unfairness of this disparity, and the reason why we have, you know that political and geopolitical tension around the world is simply because we don't have enough people with critical thinking of the variety that comes through an arts degree or humanities discipline. You know, we can't all be technicians. We can't all be STEM experts. And I think your pricing had a really important entry point as well, which is predominantly, you know, an arts degree is an entry point for people from lower incomes. So, all of those people in Western Sydney who are who are trying to lift that level of skill set in this region, and it's occurring. The arts degree is the largest entry point for them. It's predominantly women, too, that do humanities subjects, and again, they're the ones that are hit a second time around with HECs debts because they take time out to raise kids or their employments interrupted. It's also a really big entry point for Indigenous students. It's wrong on every count. Universities don't like it. We've got no option, because that price is set at the Federal level. But no, it's got to stop.
GLOVER: Tim Ayres. The Government did make a bit of a song and dance about this when they were in opposition. Are they not doing enough to turn around this policy?
AYRES: I did, too. Richard, as the proud holder of an arts-industrial relations degree. I too have got an arts degree I want to defend here, but, of course, these relative fee changes were introduced by the last government. We've had a very thorough going process, the university's accord process reform more broadly, and the Government's chosen, in this instance, to focus on making HECs repayments fairer for students across the board, so the indexation changes will have a very significant impact for HECs repayments for all Australians who've got HECs debts.
GLOVER: That has been a good change. But at the moment, we do look as if, you know, studying History or English is the province of middle-class people, middle-class kids.
AYRES: Well, it shouldn't be and we believe you can't do everything. Richard, this is the thing we are. We are in government. We've been in government now for two years. The previous government made some changes. We've had the option of choosing where to lean in on reform, and we've linked in as a government on the measures that have, on across the board, impact for all students. And that's got better equity outcomes than anything else we might do. But arts degrees, of which there is increasing enrolment in arts degrees around the country, not decreasing but increasing enrolment is very valuable. They are a great place for school leavers to start, they're a really good degree. They offer a broad education, and there should be more of it.
GLOVER: And you never know, you might become Senator and Minister for Trade, if Assistant Minister for Trade, if you did, or...
AYRES: Even better, 2BL’s afternoons and evening announcer.
GLOVER: Let’s call that out. Jacqui Monro, do you go along with that? I mean, we love STEM of course, it's important to the nation's future, but so with arts, isn’t it?
MUNRO: Yeah, having a well-rounded population is obviously something that is to be striven for. And I think Andy has hit the nail on the head. What young people are facing at the moment is crippling debt and the cost of living crisis that we're in, really and particularly for young people, who are really facing an awful, awful rental market, this is just another notch on the debt that people have to go into just to live and survive and get by at this stage. And when we're thinking about higher house prices, and you have maybe you're in your late 20s, early 30s, you're trying to pay off your HECs or HELP loan, and you're also trying to get a loan from a bank to buy a house. It's just these compounding problems and the worst that they get, like we will see with people who are going into arts degrees, the harder life will be, and that's what the Labor government aren't dealing with. There's been lots of confusion about the indexation of the HELP or HECs loans and where that level will actually be at.
GLOVER: Okay, but the gearing up against arts degrees was done by the Morrison government.
MUNRO: Well, I think the idea behind it, of course, is that we need to have a well-rounded population. So yes, we do need people with arts degrees. And we've just heard that there's a record number of arts degrees being enrolled in. But we also do need to encourage people to go into other sciences. We know that, for example, the tools that are required in laboratories, for example, do cost more money, but it's about finding the right level. I mean, this is an enormous increase, $17,000 per year on one degree, which people have definitely not planned for, and will mean that they are in debt for years longer than that what they would have been even last year.
GLOVER: Jacqui Munro's with us. Professor Andy Marks and Tim Ayres. Just finally, this month marks the 100th anniversary of compulsory voting being introduced into Australia. Was legislated in the Federal Parliament in July 1924, leaving Australia as one of the very few countries in the world where it's both the law and that law is actually enforced. There really is only a handful of countries like us. Tell an American that we're forced to vote, or at least to turn up and tick our names off, and they really can't believe it. So, should we be celebrating this unusual thing that we do in this country? Andy?
MARKS: We should, you know, forget the sausage sandwich, which is reason enough to turn up. I mean, there's a lot wrong with the Australian system, but this is the stabilizing force for us. It's been incredibly important. It was compulsory, even before 1925 to 24 to vote in a referendum. So, we've been at it since 1906, you know, and this says to you that you should treat politics with importance. It sets up a principle. You may not want to engage in politics every day, and the argy-bargy, but it affects your life, and you should turn up and have a say. What could be more Aussie than that?
GLOVER: Jacqui Munro, do you agree?
MUNRO: Of course, and I think the egalitarian spirit that compulsory voting engenders is really valuable. It's that every single Australian has a worthwhile vote. They have a voice, and it is respected, and it is something that will be listened to. And it's not only our compulsory voting system that means that we do have such a strong democracy, but also the mechanisms by which we conduct the vote on paper that we count the vote with scrutineers. There's this whole system around democracy that we have in Australia that allows people to feel confident that their voice is heard and that it matters, and that they should keep turning up every election to have their say. So very happy to celebrate 100 years of compulsory voting in Australia.
GLOVER: Tim Ayres, do you make it a three on that?
AYRES: Yeah, you won't get any argument from me. We have the best democracy on Earth. It's not perfect. We have to keep fighting to make it better. You know, reform’s important, but compulsory voting does mean that at the end of a Federal or a State or local Government election, we know that the choice has been made by every Australian voter. That's a really important part of our democratic legitimacy. And there is, democracy isn't something that you just take from. It's something that everybody has a responsibility to contribute to, and compulsory voting is the minimum. You know, a lot of other people do extra things. They contribute to their sporting club, their school, PNC, the union, they get engaged in local government, all sorts of things that strengthen our democracy and our democratic institutions. Compulsory voting once every three or every four years is the minimum requirement. But it does, it strengthens our democracy, makes the country stronger, means we can have more confidence in our governments. It's absolutely the way to go.
GLOVER: Well said, I agree with it. And I think most Australians do, despite the fact that people are so surprised when we when we talk about it. We're out of time. But thank you very much to Tim Ayres, He's a Labor Senator for New South Wales and Assistant Minister for Trade and Manufacturing, Tim, thanks so much. Thank you.
ENDS.
