PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
PRESS CONFERENCE RE: THE NATIONAL MEETING ON YOUTH
TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
22 JULY
E& OE PROOF COPY
PM: I'll just begin by saying that we had an
exceptionally good meeting, the atmospherics of the
meeting were good, the contribution by the
participants was good, and it started of f
exceptionally well. I think everyone left with a
good feeling about the meeting and I think that
Yvette Varco, one of the young people from theYouth
Action Group, this morning, talked about sharing,
that picked up some of the theme of the day and I
think set a good tone.
I might, if you like, just make these general points
that everyone recognises that there are two
problems here. That is, the fact that Acbs in the
to 19 year area have since the 1960s largely
disappeared, that is the untrained jobs and that we
needed this transition from school to work. That
being one of the principle subjects under
consideration, the second being the immediate plight
of the unemployed, those for which the Carmichael
Report and the transition and the rest wiflbe too
latfie. Those people who are already unemployed and
whose faith and hope in this community has been
diminished as a result, and whose self esteem-has
been diminished as a result. That was the other
great issue under discussion.
So there was an atmosphere of co-operation at the
meeting. The views put by people from various
segments came with a lot of good will, and I'd be
very surprised if any of the participants who you've
seen as they'd left don't corroborate what I've
said. I might just give you an idea of what I think
emerged from the morning and the afternoon session.
There was a general concern in the morning by many
speakers to get the economy moving. That is a
commitment to growtfi7AiiAM that's a commitment
across the board, from the business community, the
trade unions, welfare organisations, conservation
groups, womens groups, all the groups there wanted a
commitment to_ 9rwth. Now this may not sound
exceptional, but it is indeed quite profound,
because we know for the economy to grow and to take
up the workforce growth of this country means that
it needs to grow reasonably fast, and to have it
grow reasonably fast means that the checks on
inflation and wages do not see the growth spilled
away in a price and wage round, requires national
agreements about incomes. So all the people
endorsing a higher growth strategy are implicitly
endorsing a co-operative way of running the economy
and rejecting explicitly having the central bank
strap the economy down to protect inflation and
letting employment become a residual. The meeting
rejected that path and supported the economy moving
back to growth. A recognition that jobs must come
through that growth, and through micro-economic
reform. There was agreement that 15 to 19 years
should be seen as a period of vocational
preparation. And the need to expand and upgrade our
vocational education and training system so as to
provide high quality, accredited training for our
young people, and for technical iid vocational
education to have the samie status as higher
education. And there was some discussion about
accreditation from a national training authority
certificate back into university, whichi we can't do
today, because of the fragmentation of TAFE one
can't get a certification process to come back and
re-enter the university stream.
In this context there was wide-spread support for
the establishment for a national traininsyte
along the lines announcF66 yiesterdy, participants
feeling that a real milestone, a real break through
had occurred in the arrangements which we're able to
announce yesterday, and strong support for close
industry involvement in the National Authority.
The broad thrust of the Carmichael Report and the
principles underlying that were embraced by
everybody, there wasn't one demur, and there was an
exceptional degree on unanimity of opinion around
the Carmichael Report and its principles and
appreciation of the fact that the new entry level
training arrangements should be ind * ustry-driven and
responsive to the needs of individual industries.
Everyone was also very keen to fast track the
implementation of the Carmichael pilots, the pilot
schemes which will set up this school to work
transition. And this was very gratifying for the
Government to hear, coming from employers, who have
to provide the places. And we'll take the cue, and
I indicated that the Commonwealth was willing to
fund all quality proposals for pilots which come
forward, because what was said to us today is that
the number of pilots that will come forward will be
much greater than we had ourselves, in the first
instance, expected.
So that was this morning. Agreement about 15 to
19 year being a period of vocational preparation,
the need to expand and upgrade vocational education
and training, a recognition that a lot had already
been done in lifting the participation rates in
secondary schools from 3 in 10 to 7 in 10 and that
already a lot had been done in creation of tertiary
places, but now seen to need that complemented by
vocational education and training, and unanimous
support for the broad thrust of the Carmichael
Report to give young people a clear pathway and a
clear transition from school to work, and very
strong support for the pilot schemes and a
willingness on the part of the Government to fund as
many of them as we possibly can.
Now in the afternoon we discussed the question of
unemployment and particularly unemployment for those
people who will not have the advantage of the
transition set up by the Carmichael type changes,
and who have been unemployed now for some time. And
there was general support for community based job
schemes. And this came from organisations such as
the National Farmers' Federation in Landcare type
JOBSKILLS programs where they indicated they could
take up to 5,000 people. The Local Government
Association which indicated that local government
stands ready for infrastructure works of a regional
and local variety. FromBishjop Holjlingrworth who
talked about his concept Serving Australia which is
a variation of theYouth Corps concept, which is
again a variation of the Land'care JOBSKILLS
programs. And from the ACTJ, the National Farmers'
Federation, the Australian Conservation Foundation,
support for Regional Employment Schemes to establish
an arrangement so that we can see employment go into
some of these areas beyond the capital cities.
There was general support for decent income levels
for young people. And from people such as Espirit,
. and the Body Shop, the view that $ 3.00 an hour was
not adequate, was not an adequate level of income.
The ACTU, for it's part, said that the unions would
need to be flexible if industry is to be flexible,
if people in business will make the commitment to
put more young people on, that there was a
requirement on the trade unions to be flexible but
the jobs also need to be, because they are not often
4
commercial jobs, need to be subsidised by the
community, and that is by the Government. ACOSS in
its concluding remarks said it would be leaving the
conference where they were quietly confident, they
said that most people will leave with a commitment
to do more. And I think the general attitude of
participants at the conclusion of the meeting
States, business, unions, business groups, Farmers
Federation, the ACF, womens groups, the young people
felt that it was a very good meeting and worthwhile
things had been said, and that worthwhile changes
could well come from it. Now, the task for the
Government is now to consider what has been put
today, to weigh the balances of some of the things
said because many specific things were debated. For
instance, the trade unions talked about supporting
traineeships and a JOBSKILLS award, which would go
some distance to seeing a rapid expansion of the
JOBSKILLS program. And those things will need to be
considered by the Government between now and next
week when we will announce a set of conclusions, a
policy outcome coming from the conclusions of today.
So, I think that if I could some sum up this way and
say that people know that the Australian economy has
been in a long run transition, that the work which
was formally done by young people in an unskilled
way, in a very broad way, doesn't exist as it did.
That which mostly exists, will exist for those who
are trained. We are now establishing, and there has
been recognition for the fact that we have
established already important transitional
arrangements by participation and universities
towards a better trained workforce, and that the
National Training Authority was a milestone change,
and that on the particular problem of those who are
young and currently unemployed, that we need to
focus on labour market programs, both of a regional
and an urban variety, and which take people up in
employment, where employers are prepared to hire
people if in fact they think the arrangements are
flexible enough, and that means flexibility from the
unions and flexibility from the Government.
J: Mr Keating will you announce specific pilot projects
under Carmichael next week. And secondly what
happens to the negotiations with the ACTU on the
training wage? Do you want to try and finish those
so that you get across-the-board agreement, or will
they now go to project by project negotiations?
PM: Well some may be across the board, for instance if
we were to agree to a JOBSKILLS award, but the rest
of it would be probably in many respects enterprise
by enterprise.
J: ( inaudible)
PM: No, I am talking about in relation to immediate
employment.
J: I am talking about the Carmichael pilots.
PM: In relation to the Carmichael pilots, again I think
it is probably to early for us. I can say now we
will be adopting in principle quality Carmichael
pilots.
J: But you won't be announcing specific pilot policies?
PM: Well I don't know that we will have the pilots
proposed to us by Monday. I think many of the
participants today were themselves surprised how
much general support there was for it, and that now
I think many more will come forward. Some involve
twenty people, some involve fifty, some involve
hundreds of people. So they will have to be looked
at, and provided that the proposals are quality
proposals we will fund them.
J: Are you attracted to the JOBSKILLS award concept?
PM: I need to examine that and see what it means. There
is always this tension between moving to a more
enterprised based system of wage fixation, including
for young people, and yet the advantage which comes
quickly from being able to spread, say a program
like JOBSKILLS by virtue of having all the
industrial bases covered in one go, in one way.
J: What about the negotiations that have been going on
on the training wage and that outstanding difference
between the Government and the ACTU? What happens
to that now?
PM: There was, as I said today, a lot of support for
decent income levels and when there was some debate
about $ 117.00 for forty hours being the proposition
of the Coalition, being $ 3.00 an hour, or $ 117.00
for five days, but if you work two days training
it's only three fifths of $ 117.00, there was no
support for that in the room. No support for that.
So, I think there were a number of references to a
set of structured arrangements which are basically
going to be sound, sensible and long-term.
J: So Carmichael should be more adequate?
PM: Well Carmichael is a long run transition. It's the
change through TAFE and through universities,
through TAFE particularly, which will finish of f
that the big participation rates we have now got
coming through secondary schools. But the people
who are in their late teenage years now, it's too
late for them, the Carmichael transition, it's too
late for them.
J: Well that been the case Prime Minister, that leaves
the policy weight, the brunt to fall on immediate
measures, doesn't it?
PM: Well that was what I was just talking about.
3: But what out of this conference in terms of
immediate measures attracted you?
PM: Well that's the thing I was just saying to you.
That in talking about the extension of JOBSKILLS,
say to regional programs, or urban businesses, or
other genuinely structured training type paths, I
think we can arrive at a structure which will do
some of them good and material for employment of
young people.
J: What sort of timetable do you envisage for
Carmichael ( inaudible)?
PM: Well it means, for a start they have got to have
training places and that means how quickly we can
build a TAFE system up. Already we have many
unfilled places in TAFE, that's a point I made to
you yesterday. I thfink we will be able to build a
Carmichael type transition quite rapidly, certainly
as fast as business wants it to go, we will be able
to accommodate it.
J: Just in relation to the youth training wage, or the
training wage issue Mr Keating, I am not clear. Are
you intending in the statement you make next week to
indicate the Government's view of how you develop a
training wage structure?
PM: Well I think we will probably do that, yes. There
is a simplistic view in the media that there is
going to be a sort of training wage and there then
has to be therefore some sort of concession on the
part of the trade unions that in some way cuts a
very large hole in the rates of pay of people who
are currently employed as young people. This is not
the view of most of the people at this meeting. So
they want something which is structured and
sensible.
J: So that rejects Carmichael?
PM: No, no that doesn't reject Carmichael. But
Carmichael is talking about award wages at the end
of the transition, so we could be talking about some
variation on that on the way through. But again, it
depends on how much is on-the-job training,. how much
is off-the-job training, and what the nature of that
training is, whether it's generic training, or
whether it's key competencies or what.
J: But how are you going to solve those issues?
PM: I think that we have had already concessions made by
the unions, a willingness and a stated willingness
on their part to be flexible, and we will try and
design some programs ready for announcement
comprehending these things.
J: Isn't the issue who picks up the training tab over
and above the $ 117.00, the Government, the
individual, or the employer?
PM: No, not the only issue because in JOBSKILLS we
already pay a substantial subsidy, so however that
subsidy is paid, whether it is to meet a guaranteed
minimum or to top up is a matter for negotiation.
J: Taking you back to the start, there was no doubt
that everyone embraced the concept of the Carmichael
training wage, embraced in principle?
PM: Unanimously.
J: So funding for the Carmichael pilots. Were you
saying that it won't be restricted to just pinning
wages to $ 117 a week, and that you may be willing to
negotiate for subsidies to bring wages above that
level?
PM: The ACTU is talking about $ 117 as a sort of
guarantee minimum. But again, they are not talking
about it necessarily for a 40 hour week, a la
Hewson, they are talking about part week work and
part week training.
J: It will still be a 40 hour week from the
individual's point of view, wouldn't it, if you took
their training and their work.
PM: Yes, that's right.
J: Do you have any in principle position on who should
foot the bill for training under that scheme?
PM: Yes I have thoughts about it. But again, I'm not
going to try to design the thing here.
J: What do you define a decent living wage?
PM: I'm not here to define that either. We've got now
the 18 and over independent rate, Austudy away from
home. We put together, thoughtfully, in the 1980s a
common youth structure which has been one of the big
factors which has lifted the participation rates in
schools, and it has worked.
J: If the Coalition's $ 114 wage is too low for
individuals to live on, do you concede also that the
$ 117 may well be too low?
PM: Just understand this, the Coalition's propositions
have no relevance in the industrial world of
Australia whatsoever. Nobody is interested in it.
There's no training about them, you get $ 117 if you
work a full week, if you get trained you get less
than $ 117. If you work three days work and two days
training you get three fifths of $ 117 and no
training. Left dead! Nobody is interested in that.
Not a sole. Not any segment of that meeting was
interested in that. I mean we are talking about
something real, something long term, something that
is part of a structured transition from school to
work, and which at the samre time fills the bill for
those who are unemployed now.
J: Is there a need for the Government to review the
level of unemployment benefits, though, for young
people $ 117 being for an independent?
PM: We were not there today to have a debate about the
adequacy of pensions or benefits. I'm not here to
have a discussion about adequacy.
J: Is the Government and the ACTU satisfied that there
won't be a serious displacement problem?
PM: These are obviously all additional people, people
who business wouldn't otherwise be taking up.
J: So what happens to them at the end of the day? That
has always been one of the ACTU's concerns, hasn't
it, when they graduate to an adult wage?
PM: Well if they're valuable to the business and the
scheme is cost effective, then businesses will carry
it beyond the naked commercial considerations.
Because on a naked commercial basis they wouldn't
employ these people. That's the problem now. They
are telling you now that they won't employ them.
That's obvious in the figures.
J: You said a moment ago that the level of benefits
wasn't an issue at today's meeting. One of the
unemployed teenagers has told us that they mentioned
to you that the financial support for young people
isn't enough, especially in an aboriginal family.
PM: That is true. But the purpose of the meeting was to
look at remedies for jobs and training.
J: Well what's your response to that teenager?
PM: My response is that the Government did not go there
today to debate adequacy of levels, and is not going
to be debating them now.
J: You also talked about funding any quality program
under the Carmichael pilots. What cap has the
Government got on the total amount of money for
these?
PM: I think at the moment the pilots are very modest in
number. We started believing they would be modest
and finished the day thinking they would be much
more than modest. That is, by the decision
yesterday on the National Training Authority, which
was a milestone change, that plus an acceleration of
the pilots will accelerate the transition of the
Carmichael variety from school to work by years. By
years. So the more pilots that can come through,
the more likely we are to be funding them.
J: Would you imagine next calender year, Mr Keating,
you'd have 5000 people in these pilots, or 500?
What sort of
PM: There's no point in trying to put a number on them,
Michelle ( Grattan), there's no point at all. It's
the quality that will matter and setting them up
right, so we're setting up a long road.
J: Do you have some specific proposals before you
already?
PM: Yes, already.
J: Can you give us some examples of the sorts of
pilots?
PM: Kim Beazley can do that, I can't from the top of my
head. We have a number but they are not great in
number, but they will be greater in number as a
result of the meeting.
J: The ACTU has called for programs to the value of
$ 750 million a year. Is that sort of thing out of
the question, or a possibility?
PM: Again, that's only asking me what we're going to
announce next week. Just give us time to do that.
Let me just make this point about the general change
in education and the transition. John Dawkins made
the point in his concluding remarks, that a decade
ago in the United States they were debating the
inadequacy of the US education system to deal with
the responsibilities of the United States economy,
and nothing has changed in a decade. In a decade in
Australia we have come from three kids in ten
completing secondary school to seven in ten, we're
on our way to nine in ten, we've added 50 per cent
to university places, we are now going to totally
modernise and lift in status and volume technical
and further education, vocational education, and
make secure pathways between school and work. It is
a transition within six or seven years that
countries take decades to put into place. And what
yesterday and today will do will simply truncate
that transition down further.
J: Mr Keating, you said at the outset that there was
consensus about the need to get the economy moving.
Was there any consensus about how much needs to be
spent to do that?
PM: There was no debate really. The ACTU in a very
routine way mentioned the fact that we should spend
x and we should put marginal tax rates et cetera, in
a sort of recital of its earlier announced
proposals, but there was no debate about that. But
there was from a number of people, the business
representatives like John Prescott, the MTIA, Bert
Evans, people saying expressly that the big solution
here is growth, they want a growth economy. Well,
everyone who understands this debate knows that the
Liberal Party could never give them a growth
economy, because if it grows even moderately quickly
then wages and inflation will grow with it and
they'll check it with an interest rate rise. So
they're really putting their hand up for a policy
difference than that of the Opposition.
J: were they putting their hand up also for you to
spend big in this Budget?
PM: No, the business community I don't think were, no,
not. But again, I think they want to see those
things that we have done spent and brought to
fruition.
J: Did they say explicitly that they didn't belive the
Coalition could deliver growth for them?
PM: No, but everyone around the room knows, all the
participants are long term players, some attended
the 1983 Economic Sumnmit, a couple at least, so they
know what the word growth implies. It means a
higher rate of economic growth to pick up
Australia's quite high workforce growth, and it can
only be done by having national agreements on income
determination. The thing which holds inflation and
wages in check will not simply be monetary policy,
because if it is simply monetary policy you end up
with a pool of unemployed. That is, if we are in an
economy where we are getting more output from fewer
people, that is a more productive show where we're
getting more output from fewer people but we still
have a pool of unemployment, what is the obvious
conclusion? To have even greater output. So that
if we have an economy where we're getting more
output per unit of employment, we need therefore
even more output. That means rates of economic
growth and an economic management system which lets
grow. Like we had in the ' 80s that is we had
decelerating inflation while we had high rates of
growth. Now you can't deliver that with a
traditional monetary response. The monetary
response a la the Liberal Party means you hold the
economy in check to hold wages and inflation in
check and that the pool of unemployed actually acts
as a break on wage demands. In their model the
unemployment is a permanent feature, and a feature
which helps in the management of inflation and wage
control. This is a model we reject absolutely.
J: Mr Keating, have you set a target on the number of
people you want to get out of the unemployment pool
by the end of the year?
PM: No.
J: Can you set a target?
PM: Well wait till next week, I'm not here to play games
about targets and things with you.
J: Was the ACTLJ's push for a national wage claim
brought up at the meeting?
PM: No, not mentioned.
J: Mr Keating, you had business people there today
discussing what the Government can do to create
employment to get the economy growing, but you had
the Chairman of the National Australia Bank in New
York only a week or so ago advising international
investors not to come to Australia, saying that
Australia's industrial relations and labour market
systems mitigate against investment. What is your
reaction to those sorts of remarks?
PM: Well it certainly wasn't Mr Prescott's view. As he
represents the largest industrial company in this
country, he said much of the growth will come from
the international market place. And he went on to
talk about that, the need for competitiveness,
focus, management of businesses, et cetera. There
was very great acceptance around the room today, or
mentioned a number of times net exports growth,
import replacement, exports, to carry some of the
real load of production in Australia. And one only
has to state the obvious two thirds of our exports
and our imports are with the Asia-Pacific.
Thank you.