Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
The Drum -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) Hillo. Welcome to 'The Drum'. I'm John Barron. Coming up - could Sunday penalty rates soon be a thing of the past for retail and hospitality workers? The PM warns indigenous Australians taking the lead on constitutional recognition threatens wider support. And the neighbours of wagyu beef cattle say not near my backyard. This Program is Captioned Live by CSI Australia And joining me on the panel tonight - cartoonist and author Fiona Katauskas, author and social commentator Jane Caro and joining us from Melbourne Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs. And of course as always you can join in on Twitter using the hashtag #TheDrum.First this evening, the issue of industrial relations is back on the agenda today with the Productivity Commission recommending that Sunday penalty rates be cut for retail and hospitality workers. Under the plan, those rates would be brought into line with Saturday penalties although emergency workers including paramedics and nurses would keep their Sunday rates.So the protections are as follows. First, there's a no disadvantage test against the award and the second is transparency, the agreements with lodged with the Fair Work Commission and the Ombudsman. Third is you get an agreement from your employer, so currently you don't have to have an agreement from your employer, a lot of people are employed in these industries in aural agreement. And if after 12 months you've been on contract you've learned you may have been better off under the award you will have the right to switch back to the award.No Australian can trust Tony Abbott with their penalty rates. This divide and conquer that some people deserve penalty rates and others don't is a bad idea for Australian families and those who go to work every day.They're aught suggest ing a 2-tier system that will see our workers in the hospitality and retail sector being treated as a second-class grouping of workers.In fact we could end up heading down the path of Tus having a US-style working poor in this country if these recommendations are picked up.Is it fair enough to say there should be no difference between working on a Saturday or working on a Sunday, or, as the union is suggesting, do you think this maybe creates second-class workers? Some people should get penalty rates on Sunday and others shouldn't?As far as I see if you work in a restaurant or a hospital, a lot you still have families and it seems strange that some arguments that people are make about hospitality work ers not needing to be paid as much Oz on a Sunday because it's no longer a day of leisure but these people want their leisure by going out to restaurants an we de mand leisure for our family but for the people who are serve ing us it's Ngo something special.Ice not like we go to church any more in great numbers. Why is we
this different?This is the way we have thought of a Sunday, it's all very well to say society has changed and it has, Sunday is still a day when the vast majority of people have a day off, Saturday might be sport and things like that and people tend to take care of stuff, administrative stuff on Saturdays, a lot of time for families and Sunday is still a to
day for a lot of people where to spend time with their family or have a day off. The system that we have with the penalty rates, that is a lot of - that's been in place for such a long time that a lot of people who are students or lowly paid workers top up their income on a Sunday and they aim to work that Sunday to specifically get that money and I think that is something that a lot of people who do work Sundays would really miss.What do you make of that argument, a tha a lot of people who work Sundays are not particularly high paid, and they need the extra money?That is absolutely true. The question I have always had with the penalty ratings debate, if people value specific days of the week more to not work, then it should be part of the market negotiation in employment contracts and obviously in award negotiations and so on and so forth. So the question that we have here is everybody can say that, re, we want to protect Sundays an we want to protect Saturdays and we would rather be paid more on day X than day Y and why don't we negotiate that? The productivity nition is 1,000 pages of very interesting material but it doesn't quite goat the bottom of the question of why we're regulating what should be negotiate in a market place.Jane there is often the argument that we hear from retailerses and people running cafes and restaurantings that we can hardly afford to open on weekends because our staff costs so much and our customers don't like having to pay a 15% surcharge on a Sunday. Do you have a sympathetic ear to those concerns?I do have a sympathetic ear to the idea that Sunday is no longer such a holy day,Yes, there was a religious pattern put over it but it was about arguing it so something
people got a day of rest. It's something we need to maintain. We don't want to see people, particularly vulnerable people, who aren't able to negotiate from a position of strength. Negotiation is great if you've got something of value, you've got confidence, you have agency, you are good at that kind of thing, it's really hard for people who don't have those things. That is the problem with bringing it rite down to it all should be negotiated, it's all equal and everyone has the same amount of clout in a negotiation. And they don't. Particular ly vulnerable low-paid workers don't. And the interesting thing about this is the idea of having hospitality workers as being able to not being paid extra on a Sunday but emergency workers have to be. What that means, basically, emergency workers have more clout and if our emergency workers said you're not going to pay me for Sunday I ain't going to work it.We need paramedic and ambulance on a Sunday but we don't need an extra waiter at the restaurant?Need is duvernlt in the market. Basically want drives markets. Yes, need drive s emergency workers but want drives hospitality. And there's absolutely no doubt cafes are burgeonling, anyway are overflowing on Sundays. People do not want to snaif the kitchen on what may well be their only day off. So there is a real opportunity for lower paid workers to top up their income via working at a time when people want to go out and relax.I don't really know that people are all that upset about paying a service charge, maybe some people are, I don't know. I've watched restaurants and area
cafes close around my local area nd it's not been penalty rates that's caused them to close. Rents are going up.Where I live the cafes and restaurants are overflowing on weekends. So if they can operate on weekends, maybe open more b tables, et cetera et cetera, could Seebohm them closing on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday insteed sted?That is true. That could happen. Sunday is surely one of the biggest days for restaurants Annika Fays. One of the things I'm wondered about where this may backfire is in terms of the reception from the public. The Workplace Relations has always been a testy field for Government. They have the WorkChoices, the campaign against WorkChoices, it's a sore point for the Government and I'm not really sure why bringing out this, and this is a only a draft proposal. This given
is not the final thing. But given the other things that are going on with the Government at the moment, I find the timing of it passing strange.It's all just possibly badly timed.Chris? 'S really interesting test for the Government because in my viet's an incredibly moderate proposal. You can making Sundays the equivalent of Saturdays. If the Government can't go ahead with small things like that in Workplace Relations reform, do they have the boldness to do anything else? I'm sad ly pessimistic but we will see what happens.It's being hailed as Barack Obama's most ambitious attempt at tackling climate change. Having failed earlier, the President is now using the environment protection agency to cut carbon dioxide emissions Clay
from power stations.Mike Clay has more.US President Barack Obama is a man un encumber ed by re-election and he has a plan to cement his legacy on climate change.We're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.The US Government plans to cut emissions from electricity generation by 32% by 2030.The plan is to use the executive powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to force US States to come up with their own plans to meet those targets.But if a State doesn't comply by 2018, the Feds will force a cap and trade system on them.The EPA is setting the first ever nation-wide stands to end the limbless dumping of pollution of power plants.28% of electricity is to come from renewable sources by 2030. States won't get credit to switching to lower emitting gas power but nuclear power will get incentive s. Iers the latest in a long line of executive actions on climate change. From tighten ing fuel economy in cars an strucks to energy efficiency in household apliefnss.: The single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global change.But the regular will face a battle in the courts. 14 States and the coal industry have already said they will sue. Some even plan to boycott the laws.First of all, most of the time the EPA wins these losses. 70 to 90% of the time. So just because someone file s a law suit doesn't mean they're going to win.The biggest losers of this plan is not going to be the coal industry that we represent or the fossil energy producers. It's going to be the American consumers because they're going to have to pay more.But whatever the outcome, the plan has put climate change firmly on the agenda of the presidential race because whoever wins will have to implement it.And US action could pressure other countries to lift their game before the next global climate change summit in Paris later this but
year.We can solve this thing but we have to get going, it's exactly the kind of challenge that is big enough to remind us that we're all in this together.So is this a deliver way to get around a hostile Congress and ereticent states or a mail Mary play in cementing a legacy in the last gasp of a presidency?Good questions, Mike Clay. So the US President has set what appears to be fairly ambitious targets flu all of this and it raises the questions could there be lessons in this for Australia. Perhaps forget the blanket poll policies like carbon tax or direct becomes instead tackle it one sector at a time.That is sort of what direct action does. We have a very similar policy under Coalition Government at the moment. I think if you are willing to ignore the legislate ure's wishes and if you have the power to regulate your way into a policy, then it is entirely happen,
possible. But what is going to happen, what is certain to happen, is a) it will be found to be likely un constitutional the way they're doing it. There's a lot of people who argue this is clearly un constitutional. But, b), the next president or the President after the next president will reverse the policy if they implement
don't belief it when you implement these via executive intervention, the next executive can reverse it. I don't see the world so l see this as a sure bet that Obama is presenting.On that question of - you talk about it being in similar in some ways to direct action. There is the stick if not the carrot in what President Obama is trying but he's also succeeded in changing the emissions standards in the American automotive industries as part of the bail-out package after the global financial crisis. Less power hungry appliances being put into American homes. It's having an effect.Look, there's no doubt that they've had reduction schemes for a very long time. The question is are those carbon reduction schemes efficient are they value for money and achieving the large-scale emissions goals that is zect suggested would need to stabilise global climate. I don't think anyone suggests the case. The US have been a laggard for a long time on these issues.Targets are in the ball park of 30% reductions in power generation by 2030. Fairly significant but as Chris rightly points out, this is all happen ing - Barack Obama is out of a job in 18 months. Is it his role to be laying down these markers?Yes, I think this is a sign of there's a boldness when you have nothing believe
to lose.And no danger of believe delivering it.Also when we are looking at this, these are nearly 30% redepuks in 2005 levels. The United States has already achieved 15%, it's halfway there already. So this is not 30% off the top of what we've got already.And the United States is not acting in isolation in this. We have the Paris talks coming up in Nor. There's been all around the world this stuff is being discussed. China has made huge developments with renewable energy, it it's the big est renewable energy future. But there is a general shift at this Paris talk it's not like Barack Obama is in a bubble, this is Parliament of him leading up to Paris, our Government is going to be releasing what it doing about Paris in the next week or so, I think. It will release the report. So I think this is bold but also I don't necessarily think this is just ab-Ma standing out on his own.Do you think there is a shirt you in this because it isn't a tax or will have a demonstrable impact on people's pockets. This will be phased in over 15 years or more.Yes, but I guess it comes down to the fact that if we want to have less carbon going into the atmosphere and I for one really do, when we have going to have to put a price on it because we are going to have to have a disincentive. But the problem is it's been without pen penalty. What I am so pleased to hear Obama calling pollution as the source of devastating problem s if woe don't do something bloody soon. It might affect people's hip pockets and that is the point. That again gives the irn sentive for us to into areas like renewables which will reduce the effect on tip pocket as anyone who has solar on their roof knows.And create some sort of state in aur climate. So I don't really buy argument about we shouldn't be affecting people's hip pocket. In a way that is how market forces work. They create an incentive for us to change our behaviour because there's one thing about human beings I know for sure - we don't change until et gets too uncomfortable to stay the siem. So we will have to get uncomfortable the
before we do anything.One of the central points to this which is essentially letting the States determine how they will meet this aircraft target, it's the op rate approach to the Aba Care, it's saying here is the market, work it out for yourself.As I understand it, it sounds like a voluntary scheme but it's really being coerced on to the states because they're using Federal highway funding as the stick in this. If you don't play along, if you don't impose a scheme on your State that the EPA approved off of we will rip off your funding for Federal highway. Tasmania coercive delegated
scheme, it's nice they've delegated the task of developing an EPA approved proposal to the States themselves but ultimately it will be the Federal Government that decide whether it is approved or not.So could President Obama's announcement on emissions provide inspiration for further action on climate change from Australia? You can head to 'The the
Drum' website for an article of the editor of the article watch
environment website.You're watch ing 'The Drum' across Australia. PM Tony Abbott has written to indigenous leaders to express his opposition to town-hall style community meetings to discussion constitutional recognition of Abbott says he
Australia's first people. Mr Abbott says he is concerned that a series of indigenous conventions would risk a log of claims being presented to the wider community. One of the recipient of this letter, Noel Pearson, says he was taken aback but the PM says it's important the constitution belong to all Australians.It is important that it's something that can be supported not just by indigenous people but by Australians generally because, while it is vital that we do acknowledge and recognise indigenous people in the constitution that
constitution, ultimately our constitution that has belong to every Australian, not just to any one section of our probably
community.That is the most - probably the most dismal part of his whole letter, it's almost offensive because the subject for any conference discussions, whether it involves all Australians or indigenous meetings wherever, whatever kind of meeting you are talking about, they can only be about whatever is on the table at the moment.I think this is a very big mistake by the PM. I think he's disappointed and frustrated indigenous leaders. Labor is offering support to this process and they are showing leadership these indigenous leaders and the the prom should not sit back and frustrate them and cause them anxiety and disappointment.We were due to Justin Mohamed,
cross to Cairns to speak to Reconciliation Australia
Justin Mohamed, the CEO of Reconciliation Australia but trouble
unfortunately we're having trouble with that link. So let's go to our panel and see if we can get Justin with us.Fiona, there seems to be an irony here in the sense that Tony Abbott is trying to avoid a repetition of the 1999 referendum on the Republic where the yes case was essential ly undermined by division. He is saying let's try and keep too many different ideas out of this process?I think this is an extraordinary lack of respect to indigenous people. This is a referendum that is about them and about recognition. From the outset, the recognition camp there's been criticism from indigenous leaders and indigenous people in general about the lack of inclusion in consultation over recognition, that it's been rail roaded and brought down from above. Certainly saying no, you can't consult. To be honest I find this gob smacking. I think it's symptomatic of the top-down approach of not just this Government but many governments take whether it's to the intervention, whether it's the beginning of the year and the that
Budget advancement strategy that was done with very little consultation and little funding. All these things perpetuate the sense that in is a lack of respect, a top down approach to this stuff. Today is the anniversary ry of Miss Do who died in a Western Australian lock up. There's outlets
been lobbying from small media outlets and from her family little bit
which have progressed this a little bit further but for a lot of indigenous people over and over there's a lack of respect and consultation on all sefrls. Tony Abbott said he would sweat blood over this. If he was real leader he would say, dammit, I will show, I will unify, a real leader could unify people and get them behind this. He's like we can't let indigenous people decide this because it might be device decisive.Sor you you can't have a say in this because that might divide them. I think you have lost the argument to start off with too.Chris, do you have any insights into what the PM is thinking might be on this? Is it that he is simply looking for a fairly minimal approach, one that is not controversial so the bipartisan consensus that seems to be built up around this dis is not eroded.He is obviously looking for a minimal approach but that is not one e, for example, the parliamentary inquiry found there's by my count there's at least seven or eight different proposals travelling under the ban over indigenous reck ni, it's easy to say that you want indigenous recognition in the constitution it's harder to say what that means. So from one side there is a pre amble or a statement of value s in the substitution on the other side there's what Noel Pearson's intilt
idea of an advisory bottie intilt into the constitution on indigenous people. There are more options in teen this and that. I think this is a debate that has gone far outside the PM's control . I don't know how he is going to pull it together and it's veryise for the Labor Party to say that he is offering no leadership. But they're not doing any leading themselves. If they had some terrific problems they wanted to represent, then they should do so.Nobody doubts the PM's sincerity on this particular point. Breakthrough it is pretty remarkable that the close working relationship that he has had thus far with Noel Pearson seems to have broken down on this very question.Yes, and it's quite interesting because in a way he's allowed the people who have been working on this long and hard, the indigenous people, to get their hopes up, to feel like they were really going smoer and then they were going to have all these different conventions to talk about the options. We mustn't expect indigenous people to be any more hom genus than other people. They can have a lot of different ideas and they need to have the chance to talk it out.But do they? How many people did Kevin Rudd talk to when he apologised? Leadership is sometimes about saying I'm going to do this.This is a constitution. Tony Abbott made the point that this should eby long to everybody. The reason we're doing this is because it doesn't be long to everybody, it only be longs to white Australian and we need toin cruise indigenous Australians. There was an enormous amount of discussion before we came down with our constitution.People some
put in what they wanted to see some in and others out. Why do we have a different standard for that group? I think really it's strange of him to announce wanted
this right now Mick Gouda wanted to control back under the dooner and I get the sense of we've got this far and now you have pull ed the rug out from underneath us. We want to hear their options and what their feelings are. Let people vent, once they vented you can get them to come to a decision, decision, if you never let them vent they will never come to a decision.An award winning wagyu beef farmer may soon be forced out of business, following complaints from his neighbours.His neighbours say his farmering practices are making their lives a misery. They don't like the noise, the smell and the .We have to live day with odours and that is not normal farming. We have to listen to the mill every day and it's not just five days a week, it's five seven days a week every day of the year.They never came to us before they bought to say what you do, how do you do it, they just denied de sided they don't like the farming activity around them. We are a busy farm because we feed cattle every day.These cows are grazing on grass, they are laying in grass, they are running around a paddock, and walking up to a fence to have some supplement food. This is like really fantastic farming at its best. It's world-best practice. This is the way that everybody who cares about ethics and is it should be pushing our farmers to do.The council says David Blackmore has to stop his intensive farming practice that is a description he reject. Jane you have run a few head of cattle yourself. Is this a case of nimby or is he doinging in that is not good for his nains?Ice probably disruptive for his neighbours because they wouldn't be complaining so vociferously if it was not. But it's classic conflict between a business and people who have bought for a lifestyle. I think why not put a wind farm next door: Apparently they're lovely! And they get rid of the Karela s in a few rotations.It will blow the smell back into the neighbour's yard!Just quickly, Chris, are you on the side of the hobby beef
feerms the wagyu beef?Wagyu beef not because it's a good sort of beef but it's disgrace to be pushing off award winning farmers from their land because people want leaves tile, they chose to move n noeks a busy farm. If we want Australia to be open for business, we have to look at local council regulations as well.That is all the time we have for 'The Drum' tonight.Thanks to our panelists. Our website has plenty more analysis for you. You can check it out.Have a great night and we will see you back here tomorrow.

Today we've come
to a village built on soap, or at least the proceeds
of a famous soap empire which created 900 houses
for its workers. Welcome to the Antiques Roadshow
from Port Sunlight near Liverpool. (Doorbell rings) (Theme music)

Port Sunlight has
a very special place in my heart, because I used to live here. In fact, I used to live there, number 62, when I was four years old, and that's because my dad
used to work for the company that owned this village, the company that was originally
known as Lever Brothers.

I remember playing here, in the dell. But I was far too young to understand the historical significance
of my surroundings, and the name William Hesketh Lever
meant nothing to me.

But without him,
neither the factory nor the village, named after his favourite brand
of laundry soap, would exist. In 1889 Lever commissioned
the first of over 30 architects to create his perfect community, transforming 140 acres of marshland
into what you see today.

Up went the Arts-and-Craft-style
cottages with their own baths,
loos and cold running water, set against a backdrop of wide
French-style, tree-lined boulevards and all manner
of community buildings, like the dining room,
where Lever's workers ate, under the watchful gaze of his collection
of Pre-Raphaelite paintings.

In return, the workforce
are expected to follow a life of thrift, sobriety
and a desire for self improvement, which is no small ask. But then, Lever believed
that if his workers were healthy and removed from the temptations
of city life they'd work hard
and remain loyal to his company.

In the early 1900s,
one of Lever's most loyal workers was foreman and village photographer
Edward Jenkins. Here's one of his albums.

Take a look at this. This is Jenkins in the Port Sunlight
literary society.