Subject:
WorkChoices, David Hicks
E&OE...
KELLY:
And on this anniversary of WorkChoices, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister joins us in our Parliament House studio. Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Fran. How are you? Happy anniversary to WorkChoices.
KELLY:
Happy anniversary to you I think Prime Minister and your WorkChoices baby. It's one year on. The AC Nielsen poll out yesterday found that almost 60 per cent of those who knew about WorkChoices didn't like it much. Is WorkChoices dragging down the popularity of your Government? Is that how you see it?
PRIME MINISTER:
WorkChoices is a very important part of the reform program that's needed to strengthen the Australian economy into the future. You have to ask yourself a rhetorical question; what do we want about Australia's economy? We want an Australian economy that delivers the great human dividend of more jobs and more prosperity because having a strong economy is not an end in itself. It's only a good thing if it delivers outcomes for people and for families and the evidence over the last year is contrary to all the dire predictions made by the Labor Party and by the union movement. The evidence is that WorkChoices has been beneficial. We've had, what, more than a quarter of a million more jobs created, wages have continued to rise strongly, strikes are at their lowest level since 1913. So the scorecard is very, very strong and if we roll back WorkChoices, which is what Labor will do if it wins at the end of this year, it will be the first time in a generation that a major economic reform in this country has been reversed and that will send a terrible signal to the business community in this country, to investors abroad; we'll be saying to the world this country has lost its stomach for economic reform, it's all too hard and we're lapsing back into the also-ran approach that we had to Australia's economic performance for many years.
KELLY:
What about something less than reversal, given that it's not entirely popular. Is there nothing to tweak or change, nothing you'd consider tweaking or changing?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have said that we would always be willing to fine-tune, but the fundamentals, for example, we are not going to change the removal of the unfair dismissal laws for small firms, that's firms employing fewer than 100 people...
KELLY:
What about lowering the thresholds on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, we're not going to lower the threshold because there are a lot of firms now, particularly in an age of greater casualisation of the workforce, and this is a head count the 100, there are many quite small firms, because they employ a number of casuals and part timers, there are many small firms that have workforces of 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and they're not large enterprises by any means.
KELLY:
So what about when you say tweaking then, what do you mean? Would you considering for instance...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I didn't say tweaking, that was your word. No, my position all along has been that we are willing if particular problems arise, we are willing to fine-tune. But I am not using any different language now, and don't try and suggest I am from what I have been using for the last year. This is a very important economic reform and the reason I believe in it is that I believe it's essential to maintain our future prosperity. And to roll it back would be the same as reimposing high tariffs, re-regulating the exchange rate or dismantling taxation reform. And I think those who have criticised it should understand the very bad signal that would be sent, as well as the effect we would have of robbing the economy of much needed flexibility. In a globalised world you need flexibility. You need flexibility in the workplace and you also need flexibility in the employment arrangements across the country. They will vary from firm to firm; they will vary from enterprise to enterprise, but we cannot afford to go back to the old days of a one size fits all approach to industrial relations.
KELLY:
I ask again though, what about something less than going back to the old days because in one of the newspapers today Mike O'Hagan, he runs a removalist business; he's an AWA Ambassador for the Office of Employment Advocate, he's a government appointee to your Fair Pay Commission and he's quoted as saying he wouldn't mind if Labor scrapped AWAs so long as flexible collective agreements are still available. Now that's a blow to your hardline position isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my position is not hardline and that's the view of one person. It's certainly not the view...
KELLY:
A key supporter of your WorkChoices.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's certainly not the view of the mining industry, for example, which according to the Opposition is so important to Australia's prosperity; it's not the view of many other people. But the reason why I don't agree with what you're saying, Fran, is I don't think it would be in the interests of the economy and the interests therefore of Australians who benefit from a strong economy in order to change things. See what really is at stake here and why the Labor Party and the union movement is so very keen on rolling back these laws is they want to reimpose union domination of the industrial relations system. The unions are not interested in the working conditions of working families; they're interested in union power. And people should understand that what really is at stake when the federal election comes around; because if Labor wins, you will have Labor Government's everywhere in the country, there will be no checks and balances against untrammelled Labor power, and on this issue, Labor power means union power. I mean, for example, I understand you are going to interview Mr Combet this morning. You're interviewing me on WorkChoices and you are interviewing not the Leader of the Opposition, not the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, not the political voice of Labor, but you're interviewing the real masters of Labor on this issue and that's the man who runs the ACTU. Now there's a certain symbolism on that. Here we are a year after WorkChoices, the anniversary of WorkChoices, I'm available to speak for my Government and defend my policies. Who's speaking for the Opposition? Mr Greg Combet. Now he's perfectly entitled to do so...
KELLY:
Well I think the head of the union movement is entitled to talk about IR law legislation, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I'm not saying he's not entitled to but it's very interesting on the national broadcaster, the anniversary, you'd of thought that political Labor might have put a head up, but this just is a reminder to the listeners that what is involved here is the reassertion over the industrial relations system of union power. We have no objection, and never have, to the involvement of unions, we have no objection to people going into collective agreements if that is the wish of the employer and the employee. We strongly defend the right of people to join unions, but we reject a monopoly being given back to the union movement over our industrial relations system. However they paint it and however many disputes will be orchestrated at the national conference of the ALP to demonstrate Mr Rudd's alleged authority over the unions and over the Left, that is what is at stake. If Labor wins the next election the unions will be back in charge of the industrial relations system of this country and I think that will be bad for our economic future and that is why I believe so very strongly in these economic reforms.
KELLY:
But you say WorkChoices and the union campaign against it is all about wanting to maintain union dominance and not about working conditions, but let's go to working conditions because the Government's own Office of Employment Advocate has shown that workers did lose conditions under WorkChoices and if I run through the list, it's a list we've said before, 51 per cent cut overtime loadings, this is AWAs that have been signed, 63 per cent cut penalty rates, 64 per cent cut annual leave loading; let's look at wages, the latest ABS wages looking at full time wages only, says full time wages decreased point six of a per cent for the year to December, we have constant emails to this program say it's all very well to talk about strong employment growth, but our kids can only get part time jobs and they're being forced to lose penalty rates. Penalty rates was an issue Pru Goward said on this program yesterday was an issue for her in the New South Wales electorate of Goulburn, so people are concerned about conditions and losing them?
PRIME MINISTER
Well, can I just take those things one by one, can I just deal with the issue of those figures that were released last year. The point that's been made by Joe Hockey, and I make again, is that it is very, very difficult to measure, say, a trading off of penalty rates against some other benefit. Mr Combet himself has boasted that, as a union official, he has negotiated the trading off of penalty rates against other benefits. And you talk about people losing benefits, you talk about some people having a difficulty only....in only being able to get a casual job. A casual job can I tell you is better than no job at all, and as Tony Blair once famously said, fairness in the workplace starts with a chance of job and the greatest gift that people can have from a strong economy is the opportunity of having a job. And you can't argue with the evidence that unemployment is at a 32 year low. You can't argue with the fact that under this government real wages have risen by 19.7 per cent in 11 and a half years, yet they fell, they fell, in the 13 years that Labor was in power. So what the union dominated industrial relations system delivered was a fall in real wages, what the more flexible system of the Coalition has delivered is an increase, an 19.7 per cent increase, and on top of that we have this incredible improvement in the number of strikes in industrial disputes. You have to go back to 1913, the year before World War I broke out, to get a situation where the number of strikes was lower than what it is now. I mean you can pluck out a particular figure, you can parse and analyse, Fran, but you can't argue with those aggregate figures. They are very convincing and what's more, they fly in the face of what the Labor Party and what the unions said was going to happen.
KELLY:
Well we'll put some of that to Greg Combet in a moment. Prime Minister if I could turn now to the case of David Hicks, his hearing in Guantanamo Bay has been going on this morning, speculation is mounting that plea bargain is being considered, are you hearing anything in particular on that front?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Fran, that would be a matter for the lawyers to discuss. I saw something in the paper this morning attributed to David McLeod, who is David Hicks' Adelaide lawyer, about a number of things being on the table. What I will simply say in reply to your question, is that is entirely a matter for the lawyers.
KELLY:
If he does plead guilty, who determines if he serves his time here in Australia, your Government or the United States?
PRIME MINISTER:
Fran, we have an agreement, irrespective of the context of the question you've asked me, we have an agreement, an understanding with the United States that he would serve the unexpired residue of any term of imprisonment in Australia, that is after making allowance for the five odd years that he's been in captivity and we argue very strongly, and we believe that if he were convicted then that period of time would be taken into account.
KELLY:
And would Australia consider some of that time being served under a control order or something less than prison?
PRIME MINISTER:
Fran, Fran, he's before the Commission at the moment, I'm not going to speculate about those things, they are, after all, matters between him and the military prosecution, and between his lawyers and the American lawyers. I'm not going to get into speculation. I can't and I won't.
KELLY:
Alright John Howard, thank you very much for joining us.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
KELLY:
And can I say congratulations on news of your impending granddaughter or grandson.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well thank you very much Fran, we are very happy for our daughter and son-in-law and we look forward to the event with great enthusiasm.
KELLY:
I'll bet you do. Prime Minister thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]