-PRIME MINISTERFOR
MEDIA ~ PR L 1981
ELECTORATE TALK
Two weeks ago I spoke to you about the Government's attitude
to the Campaign by militant trade unions to force a 35 hour
week on Australian industry. Since then the M~ inister for
Industrial Relations, Mr Peacock, has made an important
statement to the Parliament, and there has been a lot of
discussion in the community about the 35 hour week.
The view of the Government is that this campaign will have
a serious effect on the Australian economy's capacity to
provide the additional -job opportunities we are all seeking.
It is essential,. that it be resisted in every reasonable way
possible. The question is not whether the forty hour week
is unchangeable for all time. The Government believes that
it is fair that genuine productivity gains in industry be shared
by all, by consumers in the form of lower prices, by
businesses, in the form of profits needed to create jobs,
by employees,,. in the form of improved working conditions.
But the present union campaign is not about distributing
the benefits of productivity to the community in the way that
I have described. It is an attempt by a few powerful and
irresponsible unions to grab all those benefits, and more,
for themselves and their members.
The introduction of shorter working hours is not a matter
to be settled at the expense of the community by deals
between big business and big unions. During this week the
Government was pleased to receive support for this view
from the Chairman of ICI who stated that contrary to press
reports his company did not intend to concede a 35 hour week
to its unions.
It was also pleasing to hear some more responsible statements
by Labor Party spokesman and Premier of New South Wales,
Mr Wran, who stated that he didn't believe that a 35 hour
week was inevitable. Indeed, he said, " We should not think of
a 35 hour week across the board in any circumstances." Less
than a year ago, Mr Hayden was saying much the same thing.
He said, " I have got to say frankly that as an economist,
and a former treasurer I would not support a
hour week at this time. In my view it would have damaging
cnsequences-to many industries and I see a much greater need
at this point to use resources that are available to generate.
more jobs, to get the economy fully employed rather than
moving to a 35 hour week." It is regrettable that instead
of maintaining this responsible attitude, the Federal Labor
Party is now siding with the powerful unions.
-2
During Mr Hawke's Presidency of the ACTU in 1979 the resolution
was adopted that unions in all industries should " immediately
develop and actively pursue programmes for achieving shorter
working hours." Mr Hawke and others continue to support
the view that shorter working hours are inevitable
and there should not be strong resistance to the present
irresponsible campaign. It is time that Mr Hayden, in
his role as leader of the Labor Party, stood up for the principles
he enunciated so clearly a year ago, instead of silently
supporting the confrontationist approach of the militant
unions._ I
The Altona dispute is a good example of the kind of thing
which this 35 hour week campaign involves. The companies
were forced, by a campaign which started with " sit-ins" and
ended with strikes, to make quite unreal concessions. In
return, the unions in some cases agreed to nothing more
than to work in accordance with existing awards. It was
agreed, for example, that correct timekeeping would be
implemented, that work and job cards would be used more
efficently and that tea breaks would be restricted to
the existing allocated time. The agreement was heralded as
based on productivity gains. * In reality, unionists were
rewarded for giving up undesirable work practices that should
never have existed.
The Government cannot stand by and allow the unions to use
improperly imposed restrictive practices as a basis for
so-called productivity bargains. Nor can we remain silent and
inactive when we see the possiblity of big business making
concessions which will eventually lead to unemployment and
unprofitability in less insulated and protected industries.
The dangers of these undesirable results are especially
acute when one set of productivity gains are double-counted,
used once to secure pay increases and again to secure shorter
hours of work. And they are increased even further when the
same gains are then used to justify a general flow-on of
benefits to others. Double-counting of benefits can only
refuel inflation and reduce employment prospects.
The Government is seeking the co-operation of trade unions and
business leaders in ensuring that the benefits of higher
productivity are widely shared by the community as a whole.
The fact is, however, that a major assault has been launched
on industry by the organised union movement' to extract gains
for a relative few without any sense of eortmunity responsibilit~ y.
Those people looking for work, senior citizens and retired
people, small businessmen and others who are, damaged by
the 35 hour week campaign deserve better from powerful
institutions like the trade unions and the Labor Party than
they are gettting at the moment. It is time for responsible leadership
-3-
in the union movement and the Labor Party to recognise this
fact and to acknowledge their responsibilities to other
people in the community. The central issue in this 35 hour
week campaign is really one of the moral responsibility of
a few to the rest of the community. 000--