MACQUARIE NETWORK WEEKLY BROADCAST
BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RT HON.
WILLIAM _ McMAHON, CH, MP. 9 AUGUST 1972
WEEK
Interviewer: Paul Lynch
Q. Prime Minister, you, your Cab-' ret colleagues, and various
other Government spokesmen, including the Q. C. s whom you've
retained to appear before the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission,
have made it clear that you stand one hundred per cent
against a general increase in the number of people getting
the 35-hour week. Why is that
PR. The question that must be answered by anyone who thinks
about the 35-hour week, is this. What wv~ ill the effect be upon
the mother, and the children in the home? W'hat will be the
effect on people on fixed i.-Ct-, Tj-v2S, as for example on people
receiving superannuity payments? What will be the effect on
our export in competition with the exporters of other countries?
These are the problems we face. And I think it can be
crystallised in this way that if the 35-hour wieek were introduced,
and we tried to replace those hours, by overtime working
at penalty rates, or by fresh labour, then, we believe, the
cost to the community would be 3m:-r; of the order of
$ 2,500 million to $ 2,600 million per annum. And secondly, and
this is of crucial importance too. We believe that on the
evidence available to us at the moment, unit cost would go up
by as much as 18%, depending upon the effective reduction in
working hours. I want to emphasise those words ' unit cost
could go up by as much as 18% V under the conditions that I have
mentioned. That is the reason I believe wo have to oppose the
week whenever we have the opportunity to do so before
the Arbitration and Conciliation Commission.
Q. Prime Minister, you qualified your phrase ' unit cost'.
Now that is a technical term of course. What does it mean to
the average person listening at this m;. oment? Does this mean
that everything is going to go up 18% in price? ./ 2
PM: It means that on the average, you would expect that those
costs would go up by the amount that I have mentioned, depending,
of course, as I said, on the effective reduction of the
working week itself. What it does mean is that unit costs go
up, then, of necessity, the price of goods in the retail stores
must go up as well, and these prices have to be paid by the
mother, and they have to be paid by her on behalf of the
children, and in time it must lead to a 1-Iqsning of purchasing
power by the other eonlo that I've mentioned, particularly
the oxnorter and the--ern-n -n fixed income.
Q. One argument put forward in favour of a shorter working week
is that if you have people working for fewer hours, more jobs
will be created. In a time of unemployment, do you see that as
a good argument
PM: There are many better ways of getting increased employment
and reduced unemployment than by reducing hours of work, particularly
under present circumstances. As an example, for the
last year or more, we have been creating opportunities for
greater employment. Wo gave additional funds to the States
in order that they could build up work opportunities. We
reduced income tax so that there would be greater purchases in
the stores, and this would reflect back into employment-giving
opportunities in the factories. This is the way of getting
greater production, greater employment, and giving greater
prospects for improving living standards, and this is what we
want to do.
Q. Prime Minister, twice in the past two months your Government,
through a has intervened before the Commonwealth Arbitration
Commission to try to prevent the granting of a 35-hour week in
two separate industry areas. Now in both cases your submissions
were rejected by the Commission. Does this make you feel that
perhaps this isn't the best time in the world to be opposing the
week?
PM: No, we wanted to make a point before the Arbitration
Commission. We wanted it to be known what we thought the impact
would be on the community. And above all we wanted to prevent
a flow-on to other industries. And in the most recent case,
that is in the container denots, the Commission itself stated
that this was not to be taken as a rule" to anply to all other
industries; it was not to be taken as a precedent. We hone the
Commission will be able to live up to that rule, and certainly,
whenever we get the opoortunity to intervene, we will do so to
prevent it becoming a crecedent.
Q. Is the 35-hour week going to be, do you believe, one of the
big electoral issues of this year:
PM: Not necessarily, but I think ople must continuously bear
it in mind, and the more they know about the facts, the more,
' I believe, public ooinion will be mobilised against the
week. But we don't want to make this a political issue. We
certainly don't want to make it an electoral issues. But if
there are strenuous efforts ma. de by the trade union movement,
and little or no control from the Australian Council of Trade
Unions, then inevitably it will become a political issue, and
consequently an electoral one. / 3
Q. The retiring A. C. T. U. Counsel,( Mr Willis, from memory),
said some few weeks ago when he left his position to run for
office, that already ae Australian worker in five works for
hours a week. Do you know whether that is a correct figure?
PM: I don't doubt that it is because usually he is pretty
accurate, but I couldn't give you a precise answer because I
haven't checked on the facts myself. But I don't think that
gets away from the crucial issue that faces us. If we get a
week under the conditions that I've mentioned, then,
of necessity, people must pay more and get less. And that
must affect those who, we feel, it is our responsibility to
protect, the poorer sections of the community, and above all,
the family group. They'll pay more, they'll get less, and
their prospects for the future will be dampened.
Q. A final point, Prime Minister, on a lighter note, of course,
clerical grade officers of the Commonwealth Public Service
don't work a 40-hour week. In fact, they work pretty close to
a 35-hour week already. Does this mean that the Commonwealth
Public Service is not productive
PM: I can't make a comment about this because they got their
awards through the arbitration system, or through the Public
Service Arbitrator. As that award has been granted we have to
livewith it, and do the best we can. I want to prevent a
flow-on to other industries if I can do so.
Thank you very much, Prime Minister.