tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/national-integrity-commission-49143/articlesNational integrity commission – The Conversation2022-09-20T08:51:13Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1909892022-09-20T08:51:13Z2022-09-20T08:51:13ZWord from The Hill: Treasurer Chalmers warns against getting too excited by $50 billion improvement in budget bottom line<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485536/original/file-20220920-3660-7j7yey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C49%2C8218%2C5438&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.</p>
<p>In this podcast Michelle and Amanda Dunn, the Conversation’s politics editor, canvass Jim Chalmers’ announcement of a windfall improvement of almost $50 billion in the budget outcome for the financial year just ended – which the treasurer is talking down as the result of temporary factors. He insists his October “bread and butter” budget is full of challenges, as the government trawls through Coalition programs looking for cuts. </p>
<p>Michelle and Amanda also discuss the latest polling on a republic, as well as the introduction next week of legislation for a national integrity commission.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190989/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, Michelle & Amanda Dunn discuss the $50b windfall improvement announced by Jim Chalmers, legislation for a national integrity commission, and the challenges facing a republicMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1721472021-11-18T06:21:57Z2021-11-18T06:21:57ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Liberal Dave Sharma on 2030 target<p>Liberal backbencher Dave Sharma, a former diplomat, is an up-and-comer in his party and one of its moderate voices. </p>
<p>Holding the progressive electorate of Wentworth, where formerly Malcolm Turnbull was the member and climate change is a significant issue, Sharma was among those Liberal MPs who pressed Scott Morrison on the 2050 target before Glasgow. </p>
<p>In this podcast Sharma discusses climate policy, the religious discrimination legislation, a national integrity commission, voter ID, China, and the Liberal party. </p>
<p>Asked whether the government should improve its medium-term target at next years climate conference - which the government is not disposed to do - he argues for leaving options open. </p>
<p>“I wouldn’t be ruling it out, but nor do I think we necessarily need to be ruling it in. I think we need to maintain our options.</p>
<p>"I think we always need to be mindful of where the international environment is at on this, and that’s very much shaped our attitude towards adopting net zero by 2050.</p>
<p>"Australia has always been a country that doesn’t seek to be an outlier in the world. It seeks to move with the major currents of world opinion and world developments.”</p>
<p>With the government’s religious discrimination legislation due to be introduced next week, Sharma says: “My concern is that what should be a shield only does not, is not allowed to become a sword. </p>
<p>"People should be protected against discrimination on the basis of their religion. But someone’s religion or faith should not give them a positive right to discriminate against other people.”</p>
<p>On China, he’s encouraged by the recent joint US-China statement on climate and this week’s talks between President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping, and urges efforts to improve Australia-China relations.</p>
<p>“We live in the same region together. There’s a remarkable degree of common interests that we share. We’re well integrated trading and economic partners. It’s too important a relationship [..] not to be striving every day to ensure that it works better.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Liberal backbencher Dave Sharma, a former diplomat, discusses climate policy, the religious discrimination legislation, a national integrity commission, voter ID, China, and the Liberal party.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1275022019-11-24T19:12:03Z2019-11-24T19:12:03ZGovernment’s Commonwealth Integrity Commission will not stamp out public sector corruption — here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303046/original/file-20191121-112967-1244a75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government's proposed integrity commission has come under fire.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Attorney-General Christian Porter added a little more flesh to the bones of the long-awaited Commonwealth Integrity Commission this week. In a National Press Club address, Porter argued there must be a balance between having a powerful investigative body and fairness to individuals investigated by the commission. </p>
<p>Yet commentators have roundly criticised <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/commonwealth-government-establish-new-integrity-commission">the government’s model</a> for being <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-proposed-national-integrity-commission-is-a-watered-down-version-of-a-federal-icac-108753">watered down</a> and a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/coalition-s-anti-corruption-body-a-sham-retired-judge-says-20190512-p51mk2.html?fbclid=IwAR1khmMDTdzhxlszyEKZDnUYS_D5OPxtaWHR6CO8l4_eqv6dzd0xjcMVV4M">sham</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-federal-governments-new-integrity-commission-isnt-up-to-the-job-110441">Why the federal government’s new integrity commission isn't up to the job</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Queensland LNP MP Llew O’Brien has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/21/lnp-mp-may-cross-floor-over-federal-integrity-commission-legislation">warned</a> he may cross the floor and vote against the government on this issue. O'Brien believes politicians and their staff should be held to the same standards as law enforcers.</p>
<p>Crossbench MPs have also <a href="http://www.rebekhasharkie.com.au/crossbench_calls_for_national_integrity_commission_with_teeth">called on</a> the government to establish a national integrity commission “with teeth”.</p>
<p>The government intends to release a draft bill this year.</p>
<p>So, what is the government’s model? And why has it been criticised?</p>
<h2>The government’s model</h2>
<p>The government’s proposed CIC has two parts: the law enforcement division and the public sector division. </p>
<p>The law enforcement division applies only to law enforcement agencies and those with coercive powers. The public sector integrity division covers the rest of the public sector, federal service providers, subcontractors, as well as MPs and their staff. The commission will have the power to conduct public hearings only through its law enforcement division. </p>
<p>By contrast, the public sector division will not have the power to hold public hearings or make public findings of corruption. Instead, it will investigate and refer potential criminal conduct to the director of public prosecutions. </p>
<p>This is a far more limited jurisdiction compared to its equivalent state counterparts, such as the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which can conduct public hearings and make findings of corruption in the public sector. </p>
<p>All states now have an anti-corruption commission and the federal government is lagging behind.</p>
<h2>Why not everyone is happy with the government’s model</h2>
<p>The government’s model has been criticised for a few reasons. </p>
<p>The first is that it would fail to achieve its main aim of exposing corruption in the public sector.</p>
<p>The bar for investigation is too high, requiring a reasonable suspicion of corruption amounting to a criminal offence before an investigation can even begin. This is a difficult hurdle to clear. </p>
<p>Lessons from the state anti-corruption commissions show evidence of corruption has been unveiled through investigations based on allegations, rather than before an investigation begins.</p>
<p>Another major criticism is that the proposed CIC will not have the power to hold public hearings. </p>
<p>Public hearings ensure proceedings are not cloaked in secrecy and will increase public trust. Notable inquiries in Australia have exposed major corruption through public hearings. This includes the <a href="https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/about-us/our-history/fitzgerald-inquiry">Fitzgerald inquiry</a> that revealed widespread corruption in the Queensland police force, leading to the resignations and imprisonments of various former ministers and officials. </p>
<p>But the attorney-general has raised legitimate issues about damage to individual reputations where a person subject to a public hearing has their reputation tarnished in the media, but is ultimately found not guilty by the courts.</p>
<p>This can be ameliorated by having the option of public and private hearings. Public hearings should be used only when it is in the public interest, balanced with considerations of individual reputation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-proposed-national-integrity-commission-is-a-watered-down-version-of-a-federal-icac-108753">The proposed National Integrity Commission is a watered-down version of a federal ICAC</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Critics have also complained about the CIC’s inability to initiate investigations itself and to receive complaints directly from the public. It can only investigate after a referral from the public sector, or if the CIC is conducting an investigation and discovers additional corrupt conduct in a different department. This is a significant limitation. </p>
<p>Other comparable investigative bodies have “own motion” powers to investigate issues based on public complaints. </p>
<p>There is no principled reason why we should keep MPs, their staff and public servants to a lower standard than law enforcement agencies. Corruption can manifest equally within the ranks of MPs, the public sector and law enforcement agencies.</p>
<h2>The need for a national integrity commission</h2>
<p>The public is <a href="https://news.griffith.edu.au/2018/08/20/griffith-research-shows-trust-in-government-slides/">calling out</a> for a national integrity commission, with two-thirds (67%) of Australians in favour of one. </p>
<p>A group of judges have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/23/federal-anti-corruption-body-must-have-power-to-make-arrests-and-conduct-searches-judges-say">signed</a> a letter calling for a national integrity commission with strong powers and the ability to hold public hearings.</p>
<p>Australians want a robust and well-resourced national integrity commission that has strong powers to achieve its mandate. The government should reconsider its model in light of public criticism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127502/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The proposed National Integrity Commission is under attack, amid fears it will be toothless. The government needs to rethink its model.Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1087712018-12-13T11:20:34Z2018-12-13T11:20:34ZGrattan on Friday: Unions likely to be more challenging for a Shorten government than boats<p>In this week’s Newspoll 55% believed Labor would win next year’s
election, compared with just 24% who thought the Coalition would. These are figures to frighten Scott Morrison, and make Bill Shorten just a touch
nervous.</p>
<p>If most people think the government is finished, it is hard for
Morrison to get their attention – though he is certainly trying hard
enough, with his frenetic activity.</p>
<p>On Thursday he had a double-header news conference, with two major,
unrelated, announcements – a proposed new federal integrity body, and
a plan for a Religious Discrimination Act. In normal times, each would
have had its own day in the spotlight.</p>
<p>Shorten might be privately very confident, while doing his best to
avoid giving the government evidence to back its accusation he’s
measuring those Lodge curtains. But an overwhelming expectation of an
ALP victory must also produce niggling fears in Labor ranks: could
something derail what appears a relatively straightforward ride ahead?</p>
<p>The strong belief Labor will triumph could have contrary effects on
voters. It might encourage some to get behind the likely victors. But
the Liberals could also use it to frighten wavering supporters back
into the fold.</p>
<p>In the lead up to next week’s ALP national conference, which Shorten
needs to run smoothly, the government has been trying to exploit what
it sees as a Labor weak point – border protection.</p>
<p>It homed in on the opposition’s support last week for the proposed
amendment to facilitate medical transfers from Nauru and Manus. (This
was the legislation the government prevented reaching the lower house,
because it would have lost the vote.)</p>
<p>Around the edges of asylum seeker-refugee policy there are
distinctions between the two sides. But on the central element of border protection – turnbacks – they are at one.</p>
<p>Key Labor left figures including Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek
have put aside doubts to ensure the government can’t drive in a wedge.</p>
<p>Another factor is helping Labor against the Coalition’s scare campaign – without boats arriving, the issue has slipped lower
with voters. There has been a softening in community views – the
public are more open to appeals for compassion towards those on Nauru
and Manus.</p>
<p>Whatever vulnerability the ALP has in this area comes from
previously allowing the boats to restart. Probably the people
smugglers would test a Shorten government early on. But knowing the
stakes, and remembering what happened before, it’s a sure bet that government would respond robustly.</p>
<p>The area of greater uncertainty under Labor is a very different one –
that is, how much of the unions’ agenda a Shorten government would be
willing to embrace.</p>
<p>Notably, the opposition still has to fill in key gaps in its
industrial relations policies. Some commitments are clear, including
the promise to restore penalty rates. On other matters the detail isn’t
there yet – such as how broadly an ALP government would permit the
reintroduction of industry-wide bargaining. We only know its priority
would be low paid industries.</p>
<p>Workplace relations spokesman Brendan O'Connor addressed the National
Press Club this week, but didn’t make announcements. He promised Labor
would have “more to say” on multi-employer bargaining, the right to
strike, the minimum wage, and addressing the gender pay gap.</p>
<p>Just as the ALP conference will be kept in line by the approaching
election, so (at least to a degree) so will the ACTU over coming
months. It desperately needs a Labor government.</p>
<p>The trade unions’ resources – money and manpower – will be of huge
benefit to Shorten in the election campaign. Harder to predict is how they would operate under and with a Shorten government.</p>
<p>In this context, a useful reference point is the “accord” the Hawke
government had with the union movement. That was a highly productive,
co-operative association, which enabled the government to make reforms
vital to opening the Australian economy.</p>
<p>Shorten said this week he wanted to bring employers, unions and the
government together in his first week in office, although there’s no
suggestion of any “accord” framework with the unions.</p>
<p>It is hard to imagine ACTU secretary Sally McManus, an industrial
radical, having the sort of symbiotic relationship with a Shorten
government that then secretary Bill Kelty had with Bob Hawke and Paul
Keating.</p>
<p>Morrison tries to demonise Shorten’s union background and links,
labelling him “union bred, union fed and union led”.</p>
<p>Common sense and history indicate a union background can be a positive
for public policy, as Hawke demonstrated. On the other hand, there are
legitimate questions about what influence can be wielded on a prime
minister whose power base is in sections of the union movement,
including the CFMMEU. Until Labor releases its full industrial
relations policy we can’t start to get a grip on how this would likely
play out.</p>
<p>Labor has been working for months to manage next week’s conference, to
avoid it detracting from the impression of an alternative government
fit for office. In contrast the government struggles with its image in
a more ad hoc manner.</p>
<p>Monday will be a good day for the government – the budget update will
see impressive numbers. But on particular issues, it is another story.</p>
<p>Take Thursday’s announcements. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission
isn’t something the government actually thinks is needed or even a
good idea. Rather, it is a counter to Labor’s policy and aimed at
mollifying the public and the crossbench. But it immediately came
under attack as inadequate, and the conditions put on it will be seen
as letting politicians off the hook.</p>
<p>The religious freedom measures had their genesis in the unhappiness on
the right over same-sex marriage. But many voters will regard them as a
side issue or worse; meanwhile the right wing Institute of Public
Affairs condemned them as an attempt to “regulate religion” and “a
significant threat to the freedom of conscience of all Australians.”</p>
<p>Neutralising negatives is critical for both sides in the run up to an
election. At this point, Labor is making a much better fist of it than
the government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108771/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the lead up to next week’s ALP national conference, which Shorten
needs to run smoothly, the government has been trying to exploit what
it sees as a Labor weak point – border protection.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1076372018-11-26T12:34:36Z2018-11-26T12:34:36ZView from The Hill: Day One of minority government sees battle over national integrity commission<p>Whatever it does, the Morrison government seems to find itself caught
on the sticky fly paper. As if it didn’t have trouble enough with
trying to decide about the embassy in Israel and the religious freedom
report, on Monday it became messily entangled in the issue of a
national integrity commission.</p>
<p>On the first day of formal minority government, the crossbench flexed
its muscle and the government bowed to the new reality.</p>
<p>Well, not quite bowed – but bought time by taking a line of least resistance.</p>
<p>After the independent member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, introduced her
private member’s bill for a national integrity commission, the House
of Representatives considered a motion from the Senate which called on
“the federal government to establish a national anti-corruption
commission”.</p>
<p>The government didn’t oppose the motion, which went through on the voices.</p>
<p>It was claimed that Attorney-General Christian Porter wanted to set out
the government’s objections to the McGowan bill, which he couldn’t do
in private members’ time.</p>
<p>The real reason was the government didn’t want to test its numbers on
the floor when there could be a defector or two from its own ranks.</p>
<p>Porter embarked on something of a lawyer’s frolic as he pointed to
dangers in the bill.</p>
<p>He warned that any public official who, it could be argued, had
breached public trust or impaired confidence in public administration
“would be liable to a finding of corruption”, even for a trivial
matter.</p>
<p>The ABC would come under the proposed body. So Porter conjured up the
scenario of ABC political editor Andrew Probyn (who, it will be
recalled, former ABC chairman Justin Milne wanted shot) being caught
under the bill.</p>
<p>On Porter’s account, that would be because Probyn was found in breach
of the ABC code of practice’s provision on impartiality for saying
Tony Abbott was the “most destructive politician of his generation”.</p>
<p>“Under this bill before the House—no ifs, ands or buts—Andrew Probyn
would be found to have committed corruption,” Porter declared.</p>
<p>He didn’t sound as if he were joking but maybe the Attorney has a very
dry sense of humour.</p>
<p>Not that McGowan is claiming her bill has the detail right. What she
and other crossbenchers are trying to do is force the government’s
hand.</p>
<p>How far they’ll succeed is not clear – they’ll get something but not
the full monty.</p>
<p>The government’s preference would be to do nothing. But that’s no
longer politically viable. Labor is committed to a new anti-corruption
body (once it didn’t believe in one), and the level of public distrust
of the political system makes this an issue that resonates in the
community.</p>
<p>The government now finds itself in the rather bizarre situation of
having voted for a “national anti-corruption commission” without
committing itself to one.</p>
<p>In fact, such a commission is the least likely to get a tick of the
three options before the government. Porter has all but written it
off.</p>
<p>The other options, according to Porter, are expanding one of the
existing 13 bodies that presently deal with integrity and corruption
(probably the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity),
or merging some of them to eliminate overlap.</p>
<p>Ideally the way forward would be by a bipartisan approach. The issues
are indeed complex and state experience suggests the need for careful
balances and protections. But bipartisanship not the way of things
before an election.</p>
<p>Attacking Shorten, Scott Morrison accused him of being preoccupied
with a “fringe issue”.</p>
<p>Morrison said the matter would be dealt with “through a normal Cabinet
process”. Porter says this process is well underway. Indeed a lot of
it happened under Malcolm Turnbull - Porter says he has been working
on it since he became attorney-general nearly a year ago.</p>
<p>Both the embassy question and the religious freedom report are in
“processes” at the moment.</p>
<p>The government received another prod on the latter when on Monday a
Labor-chaired Senate committee recommended in its majority <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Schooldiscrimination/Report">report </a> that
a ban on religious schools discriminating against gay teachers should
be considered.</p>
<p>This goes much further than the government’s plan – bogged down in
negotiations with Labor – for legislation to prevent discrimination
against gay students. The opposition is expected on Tuesday to push the
government to act immediately on its promise to protect students.</p>
<p>As the Liberals took in the devastating Victorian result, there was
the feeling that the Morrison government was just holding things
together.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-labors-55-45-newspoll-lead-adds-to-liberals-weekend-of-woe-107583">View from The Hill: Labor's 55-45% Newspoll lead adds to Liberals' weekend of woe</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Senate president and Victorian Liberal Scott Ryan, who rarely enters controversies given his position as a presiding officer, unleashed a restrained but pointed assault against the right of the party (and rightwing commentators).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-president-scott-ryan-launches-grenade-against-the-right-107602">Senate president Scott Ryan launches grenade against the right</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Victorian Liberal backbencher Tim Wilson delivered a sharp message to the coal lovers. “If anybody thinks that there’s this great public sentiment out there that people really deep down hate renewables and they’re hugging something like coal, I say again — get real”.</p>
<p>That immediately encouraged a rerun of Morrison’s coal hugging in parliament.</p>
<p>In question time the Prime Minister was decidedly shouty and aggressive.</p>
<p>And, despite the crossbenchers now looming large in his world, he
didn’t make time to sit in the chamber for Kerryn Phelps’ maiden
speech. He had other engagements, his office said.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107637/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government now finds itself in the rather bizarre situation of having voted for a “national anti-corruption commission” without committing itself to one.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/909592018-01-30T10:46:59Z2018-01-30T10:46:59ZShorten targets hip-pocket pain, but prescriptions yet to come<p>For Bill Shorten, Tuesday’s National Press Club speech was the easy start to what could be a tougher year than 2017. The address had a popular “<a href="https://theconversation.com/shorten-puts-pressure-on-turnbull-over-anti-corruption-body-90940">announceable</a>” – a proposed National Integrity Commission – and it homed in on fertile electoral ground: cost-of-living pinches, flat wages, and high health insurance costs.</p>
<p>But it left a heap of gaps to be filled in on what precisely are Labor plans to ease the pressures many people are feeling, and questions about its ability to convince voters that it can in fact relieve them.</p>
<p>Politically, Shorten could hardly go wrong with the integrity commission, pitched to tapping into the epidemic of mistrust that’s corroding the political system.</p>
<p>Shorten was blunt: he didn’t know of any particular instances of corruption that are demanding address. It is about restoring “people’s faith in their representatives and the system”, restoring “trust, accountability and transparency in the public sector”.</p>
<p>In other words, the commission is an institutional response to what has become a hugely bad vibe in our democracy.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday left open the possibility of endorsing an integrity commission of some sort, while pointedly noting “obviously, in anything like that the devil will always be in the detail”. </p>
<p>Within his ranks there is resistance to doing something robust. Barnaby Joyce, for one, thinks it could unnecessarily restrict ministers. “You’ll be terrified to make a decision that’s different to your department,” he said, with perhaps revealing frankness.</p>
<p>For a long time the major parties did not believe that the objective circumstances required a federal ICAC. Now it is a matter of the public mood. And once Shorten decided to embrace the idea of a commission – probably with one eye on the looming <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-blow-for-labor-as-david-feeney-hits-citizenship-hurdle-88661">Batman byelection</a>, where the Greens pose an existential threat to the ALP – the government finds itself pushed towards doing the same.</p>
<p>But come election time, votes won’t turn on an integrity commission. They will turn on such issues as cost of living, discontent with flat wages, and health. The parties don’t need focus groups to tell them that, though no doubt the groups are sending the message.</p>
<p>As did Tuesday’s <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport">Essential poll</a> (which had Labor leading 54-46% in two-party terms). The numbers show Shorten is playing to ALP’s strengths: 40% trust Labor most to handle industrial relations, compared to 27% who favour the Liberals; 39% trust Labor most to ensure the quality of Australia’s health system but only 28% nominate the Liberals.</p>
<p>People’s perception of a squeeze on their living costs is stark. Asked “in the last two years, do you think your and your household’s income has gone up more than the cost of living, fallen behind or stayed even with the cost of living”, 51% said fallen behind, 28% said stayed even, and 14% said gone up more.</p>
<p>On health, 83% agreed “the government should do more to keep private health insurance affordable”.</p>
<p>Shorten didn’t hold back on the problems. “The wages system is not delivering, and it’s not just cuts to penalty rates, or the exploitation of labour hire,” he said. “Enterprise bargaining is on life support.”</p>
<p>Workers needed pay rises. Labor would “put the bargaining back into enterprise bargaining”.</p>
<p>The minimum wage was no longer a “living wage”. “Our goal should be a real, living wage – effectively raising the pay of all Australians, particularly the 2.3 million in the award system.”</p>
<p>“Yes, we must always be mindful of the capacity of industry to pay. But let me make it clear: we need to fix the disconnect between wages and productivity.”</p>
<p>Much of the detail of how all this is to be done is yet to unfold. Labor has flagged that it would attack the ability of companies to unilaterally terminate agreements. It promises to restore Sunday penalty rates and have a national push to close the gender gap.</p>
<p>But if it wants to significantly raise the “living wage” that could be a big policy challenge and certainly lead to tensions with business, which was twitchy after Shorten’s speech.</p>
<p>Meanwhile medium-sized businesses (with turnovers of more than A$2 million and under A$50 million annually) are still on tenterhooks waiting for Labor to clarify what it will do with the company tax cuts already legislated for them. Shorten in the question-and-answer session said Labor would finalise its position after the budget. It was the first time he had spelled out this timetable.</p>
<p>On health, Labor knows that it can get people’s attention by empathising with their discontent about the rising cost of private insurance, but remains vague about how it would tackle the issue.</p>
<p>Shorten said he put the big operators on notice that “business as usual doesn’t work”.</p>
<p>“If you are getting a $6 billion subsidy from the taxpayer yet you’re making record profits, yet the prices are going up and the exclusions are going up, well that’s a problem.”</p>
<p>The opposition was working though “options” and would talk to the funds. Certainly there needed to be “better monitoring of exclusions”, he said.</p>
<p>Shorten’s reference to subsidies triggered some speculation that Labor might cut the rebate for private health insurance. This was ill-based and quickly quashed. After all, as Labor pointed out, if you’re talking about containing costs to consumers of private health cover, you wouldn’t be reducing the rebate.</p>
<p>Turnbull will deliver his 2018 opening-salvo speech on Thursday. He has chosen to make it in regional Queensland rather than in Canberra, getting out of the beltway and bypassing the national media pack.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90959/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Come election time, votes won’t turn on an integrity commission. They will turn on such issues as cost of living, discontent with flat wages, and health.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.