T~ RR AA LIA,~
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE DAWKINS, WILLISJanuary
1985
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
Although this Government has been able to arrest the
massive explosion in youth unemployment which characterised
particularly the last two years of the Fraser Government, we as
with the rest of the community are still concerned with the
dimension of this problem. And it was for this reason, of course,
that we commissioned reports by Mr Peter Kirby and also had the
OECD Report both of which we've recently received. Since the
election we've given this issue top priority. The Ministers
concerned have been, with their Departments, examining the reports
and the Social Policy Committee and the Cabinet yesterday
considered these matters and arrived at decisions which have just
been endorsed by the fully Ministry. The Kirby Report, as you're
aware, covers a wide range of matters and, indeed, its 86
recommendations in all cover the whole range of labour market
programs. For the most party Kirby recommends refinements to
existing arrangements, to focus them more closely on what he has
identified to be the major need of labour market programs at
present that is, to provide adequate training and skills
development for unemployed people. Now without any question the
central recommendation of the Kirby Report is his proposal to
introduce a system of traineeships starting with 16 and 17 year
olds involving, as you know, formal broad skills training both on
the job and off the job in conjunction with paid employment. Now
the Government considers this proposal in the Kirby Report as a
very imaginative response to the current disadvantages that young
people currently face in gaining broad experience and training ana,
life skills, and'as well the proposal calculated to make a
significant contribution, we believe, to improving Australia's
skill level and competitiveness. It's certainly a proposal from
the Kirby Committee which is consistent with the approach of the
OECD in stressing that youth unemployment will not be solved
without raising youth skills and productivity. And so the
Government has endorsed the principle of traineeships recommended
by the Kirby Report. And we see broad skill-based training, which
is involved in the proposal, as one way to improve the
opportunities open to young people in the labour market, and
especially for young people who have experienced prolonged
P. M. cont: unemployment or who are otherwise disadvantaged. Now
it's quite clear, as you'll appreciate, that implementation of e
proposal will require considerable consultation with the
employers, the trade unions and with the States and the relevant
educational institutions so that there can be a fleshing out of
the proposal and an identification by us of the courses open to us
to implement the concept. And the Ministers will be immediately
undertaking those consultations with a view to Ralph Willis, the
Minis รต ter for Employment and Industrial Relations, bringing before
the Cabinet as soon as possible a more detailed proposal as to the
method of implementation of the proposal. I'd say to you that he
will also in conjunction with the other relevant Ministers be
looking at the other proposals contained in the Kirby Report so
that the appropriate response of Government can be determined to
those proposals. And as part of a consideration of the issues
raised -by ' Kirby * and the OECD -and -our own work there will be an ongoing
examination of the whole range of income support supplements
available to young people so that appropriate decisions can be
made which fit in with the thrusts of the Kirby and the OECD
Reports. That's all I want to say at this stage and not only I,
but my Ministers, are available to any questions you'd like to
address to us.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke do you embrace of Mr Kirby's proposal. He
was talking about 75,000..
He was talking abo'ut 75,000 by the year 1988. Part of what
the Minister will be doing in his consultations with the employers
and the trade unions and the States will, in part, be related to
the feasibility of the program in terms of numbers. Kirby and his
committee have talked about 75,000 by 1988 as you appreciate. Now
the Minister will be looking at that to see if that's possible, or
more. What you will appreciate is that our determination of the
numbers that can be handled will depend upon the sort of answers
that we get from the people with whom he'll be consulting that
is, the employers and the unions you've got to see what sort ofC
response there is in the various sectors of industries towards a
proposal to try and form some sort of judgement as to whether that
sort of number or more will be able to be-taken . ip. And also
you'll appreciate that it involves the capacities of institutions
within the TAFE set-up to handle numbers. So it's these sorts c-F
consultations which will determine numbers, but we would hope that
that sort of figure of 75,000 by 1988 can at least be achieved.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you foresee any problems with the trade
unions in negotiating the concept of a training wage given their
suspicions.. All that I can say about that, and perhaps Ralph may like
to add something to what I say, is this that the only public
comment I have seen has been from Mr Kelty, the Secretary of the
ACTU, and he has said, as I understand the report, that the ACTU
is not opposed to the concept of the traineeship proposed by
Kirby. He's flagged naturally enough that the unions will wish to
P. 14. cont. consulted. But I take that statement by the
Secretary of the ACTrU as indicating prima facie support. And that
doesn't surprise me because in all the discussions that we've had
with the ACTU, both prior to coming to Government and since we've
been in Government, indicates the very real concern they have
about the levels of unemployment generally and of youth
unemployment in particular. So I expect that they will take a
positive approach to this matter and you must remember that the
ACTU was represented on'the Kirby Committee by Mr Harry
Hauenschild. WILLIS: I'd just add to that Mr Kelty has directly confirmed to
me that that's his view.
JOURN ALIST: Mr Hawkrle one option which the Cabinet Committee was
looking at over the last day-or so was the possibility of means
testing unemployment benefits for young people possibly lowering
the level of them. Is that going to be looked at further in this
study of other proposals.
Well let me make it quite clear that neither the Committee
nor the full Ministry has in any shape or form endorsed any
proposals for reductions of any benefits. But what we, with
responsibility, have had to do is to say is well, now once you've
had both the OECD and Kirby externally and our own IDC looking at
the issue, the whole range of income support measures, we've got
to, and we are asking, for further reports to us on it. Because
what's got to be done is to have dispassionate look at the
relationships that exist between various income support
measures, both within the education system where there's a whole
range of inconsistencies within the education area as far as
income support mechanisms are concerned, and also to look at the
relationship between them and unemployment benefits. So no
decisions have been made about reductions of any benefits. It's
rather what we're looking at is to see, as I say as
dispassionately as we can, what are the relationships and what is
the impact of those relationships upon the broad thrusts of policy
which are determined by the Government in the light of its
acceptance of the Kirby Report that is, that we have got to
adopt policies which are going to maximise the capacity of young
people for education and training to equip them for future
employment. And-inevitably, any Government that has, once you've
made that decision, that you're going to attack that problem and
try and achieve those results, then inevitably you must have a
look at the relationship between the various income support
measures. But there has been no decision of any sort in regard to
reductions of benefits.
JOURNALIST: Mr Dawkins, I was wondering if I could ask you what's
your view on making more flexible wage-fixing levels for young
people? DAWKINS: Well I think the approach that's been decided by the
Government is to pursue the question of traineeships. It's
important to recognise that both the Kirby Report and the OECD
DAWKINS cont both rejected the notion that the level of youth
wages is the prime cause of the level* of youth unemployment. And
that's a view which I agree with.
JOURNALIST: But Mr Dawkins, without it necessarily being the
prime cause, do you figure there might be some case for more
flexibility in certain industries with regard to time of the day
and all that kind of stuff, where some impetus might be given for
the creation of new jobs particularly-for younger people.
DAWKINS: I think the approach that's been taken is to indicate
that what's important in terms of getting young people into the
labour market and keeping them in the labour market is a level of
training. And that's the important question which has been
referred to us by both -of-th-ese reports. That's why Ralph and the
rest of us are going to be looking very carefully at the proposals
of traineeships, the central part of which of course still has to
be negotiated with the unions and the employers.
WILLIS: Can I just add to that that we've already got
considerable flexibility or variation in the level of junior
wages. In a study of the 60 major awards by my Department, we
found that the junior rates expressed as a percentage of the adult
rate varied from 38% to 75% for 16 year olds and from 42% to
for seventeen year olds. ., Now those variations reflect all sorts
of things and in the development of the trainee wage we'll have to
industry-by-industry assess what was the way in which that wage
was previously developed, whether there is built in there the
concept of some adjustment of that wage for training which takes
place and then an assessment of the trainee wage and make a
decision about whether there needs to be any reduction in that
wage to take account of the fact that whilst young people are on
the job they are going to under the trainee concept be being
trained on the job and not just working productively all of that
time. In some cases wage rates already take account of that fact,
in other cases they obviously don't.
JOURNALIST: Mr Willis what can we do about Mr Ki. rby's suggestion~
that apprenticeships are a very expensive way to subsidise fulltime
training and his suggestion that there be a review of
apprenticeship rates.
WILLIS: Well it is true that apprenticeship involving payment to
the apprentice for time off the job is expensive in the sense that
that is pretty well recompensed to the private employer by the
federal Governmment which costs us some $ 76 million and therefore
the expansion of that kind of training would become very expensive
for us indeed. The trainee concept doesn't involve the Government
in any payment to employers for time off the job because young
people will not be paid for time off the job. So in that sense i
guess we are recognising that we can't as a society afford to
extend the apprenticeship concept. And I think that Mr Kirby is
right in saying with scarce resources it's not possible for us to
considerably expand the training effort on the apprenticeshic
1/ WILLIS cont model. And therefore if we are going to do it a,,
we should, and we agree with him that we should, then hav,. e to
find another more cost effective way. I think what lie's prop,: 3.,-d
is a very cost effective way and one which we intend to pursue.
JOURNALIST: Mr Willis, how long do you expect the con~ sultation
process to take and is the Government into the consultations with
a view already formed.
WILLIS: Well we have a view, as the Prime Minister has said, that
we support the traineeship concept in principle.
JOURNALIST: I mean more detail.
WILLIS: Obviously theT~:-are'-many--practical difficulties in the
development of the concept. We at this stage have had no
substantial discussions with any of the interested bodies. Now in
the next month and a half we will have an array of discussions. I
will have discussions with the National Labor Consultative
Council, with national employer and trade union
organisations, through the meeting with State Labor Ministers in
early March I'll have discussions with the State Labor Ministers
and also there'll be a national training conference on the
and 21st of February organised by the National Training Council
which will involve the whole training network under the NTC and
also State training authorities, the Commonwealth Department of
Education, TAFE and other interested bodies. So that by early to
mid-March we will have had extensive consultations in my area and
also my colleague, Susan Ryan, the M4inister for Education, will be
having consultations with State Ministers for Education and other
education authorities, so that in the next month and a half we
will have a pretty good idea what reactions are to the concept
from all interested groups and then develop the concept from
there.
JOURNALIST: What's really in it for the employer?
WILLIS: For the employer there is the chance to have a more
skilled workforce available without any additional cost to him.
Now I would have thought that from the employers' point of view
there is a lot tcs be said for having a more skilled workforce
without him having to face considerable extra costs to achieve
that. The costs of training off the job will not be a cost to the
employer. The training on the job will involve perhaps some cost,
but insofar as that involves less production to him that will be
picked up in the concept of the training wage. So really this is
not going to be a cost imposition on employers. And the Kirby
concept is one of the h~ eed to share the costs equitably between
government, employers and trainees. The employers will have-to
provide some training and so therefore there is some element of
cost there. But other than that I think that it's not an
imposition on employers and, of course, we very much hope that
they will accept this as something which is in their long-term
WILLIS cont interests in having a more skilled workforce.
It's also, if I may just add very briefly, that they were
also represented, as you'll appreciate, on the Kirby Committee.
JOURNALIST: Mr Willis how will industrial type unions be invovied
in the planning of this training wage.
WILLIS: Well Kirby I think at one stage refers to industrial
negotiated wages but at my discussions with him clearly his
concept includes arbitration if the parties couldn't agree. What
we'll clearly have to have is assessment award by award of what
the trainee wage should be in the light of the training contract
which has developed in that particular industry and in the light
of the existing pattern of junior wage rates which exists in that
industry. And so it will1-not be someth-ing which has developed at
an across the board sense. It will have to be developed indus try
by industry, award by award. So it's going to be quite a lengthy,
time-consuming process. And as the Prime Minister said we're not
looking at having this in place until really 1989 because, as
Kirby says, you shouldf k have the objective by the end of 1988 of
having the 75,000 traineeships. So it really is almost the end of
the decade before the thing is fully operational.
JOURNALIST: Mr Willis was there any decision taken to-help
unemployed people of the age of say 18 and
WILLIS: Well at this stage, I mean we are looking at developing
the traineeship for 16 and 17 year olds. Kirby clearly
contemplates that it can go beyond that, but I think we have to
crawl before we can walk, we'll get the traineeships going for the
younger people first and then look at developing it for others.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, Mr Kirby found that there were probably 1.2
million unemployed in Australia. Do you accept that figure or do
you think it is exaggerated?
What you have got to appreciate is that it has been
consistently understood that the official figures for unemployment
don't fully state the unemployment situation. That has been true
for a considerabl-e period. Now there would be some debate about
the assumptions made which have you arrive at the figure that you
mention of 1.2 million. The point I make, I repeat from the
beginning and this is why it somewhat sticks in the craw to have
our Liberal and National Party opponents talking about this
problem as though they can come to it with clean hands. They are
the guilty people of politics in this area. And let me remind you
of the sort of change that has taken place since we came into
power. Between March ' 81 and March ' 83, if you look at the
centrally important figure of 15-19 year olds looking for full
time work in that period between March 81-83 the percentage of
young people in that category looking for full-time work increased
from 16.4% to 27.4% and there was an actual increase of over
50,000 in the numbers in that category. That was their
contribution in the area of youth unemployment in their last two
years of office. Between March ' 83 and December ' 84 that figure
has dropped from 161,000 down to 122,000. The percentage from
27.4% to Now the point I am making is that it is still too
high, both for young people and older people. And that is why we
are directing ourselves here, in the field of education and the
various relevant areas to do even more with the support of the
community to tackle this problem. But in the current political
situation I find it a little short of obscene that you can have
the Liberals and the National Party in Victoria saying, look at
this terrible problem. It was a problem which exploded under
their stewardship federally and state. We have reined the problemnin
but we are not satisfied. We are going to do more to ensure
that what is a fundamental problem confronting the whole community
is going to be tackled-an'd we hope that-it will be tackled not
just with the resources of government, but with the full support
of the trade union movement, the employers organisations, the
States and the educational institutions.. It is an issue which
transcends political considerations and I hope we will have the
support of the whole community. Because-whatever the figure is
and there can be debate about the precise figure, in reality it is
too high.
JOURNALIST: Mr Willis, you talked about canvassing attitudes in
the next six weeks, can you tell us if you envisage a specific
time when you will take this issue back to Cabinet?
WILLIS: I have no specific time, Alan, but I don't wish to drag
the anchor at all on this. As soon as I am in a position to come
back to Cabinet with a clear process as to how we can further
develop the traineeship concept, then I will do so. So I would be
certainly looking to do so within the next two or three months at
the outside.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what sort of timeframe are you looking at
for the dealing with the other Kirby and OECD recommendations?
Well, I think, let me answer it and then pass it over to my
Ministers. I have expressed the hope in the expe-ctation that it
will be dealt with as quickly as can be done. But you will
appreciate I think the number was 86 recommendations in all in
Kirby so that is going to take some period of time. I don't
know Ralph, or you John, whether you can add to that, but I feel
not competent because what is involved is the discussions by Ralph
and John and Susan Ryan in a number of areas and I don't know
whether you can add anything to it. It is a matter of urgency as
far as we are concerned, consistent with the work that has to be
done and negotiations with other relevant bodies.
JOURNALIST: For example, might you be ready by Budget time to
introduce a rationalised income support system do you think?
DAWKINS: Certainly our aim in relation to the incoiia-sun-port
arrangjements would be to have any new operations or any new;
arrangements in operation for 1986.
Yes.
JOURNALIST: I imagine that quite a few of these new positions for
traineeship might be in service industries. Are there any
disruptions within the Government to-reconsider the idea of the 9-
five day week outside of which penalty rates start applying?
WILLIS: Well this is not considering that issue. This is a
process of developing training and training doesn't exist at the
present time at the sub-trade occupational level and it is a quite
different thing that we are considering from the question of
penalty rates. We will---start-ddscxssing -now a particular
issue.
JOURNALIST: Do you mind saying something about say someone was
learning to be a chef or something like that and had to be doing
it in the evening. That would start to be an area where you could
see occurring.
WILLIS: Well the question of penalty rates is one which comes up
from time to time. The problem with that is that, as a study at
Monash University showed, even if you abolished penalty rates you
would still have to pay people more to work at hours when people
generally don't want to work you know, late at night, at
weekends and public holidays and so-on. And so they felt that you
end up with much the same pattern of wages as you have with the
formal existence of penalty rates. There have been other studies
by the NLCC, the Queensland Industrial Commission, and so on, all
of which have come to pretty much the same conclusion. I think at
this stage we need to have some more compelling evidence that
penalty rates are something that we need to tackle as a major
problem in the employment field. At this stage I am not convinced
that it is.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, could I ask a question on another
matter? I am open . to questions on other matters, but can I just
find out whether there are any more in this area. If not, yes.
JOURNALIST: I was wondering whether you have had any discussions
at all, or proposed to have any discussions with the Queensland
Premier and remind him about the boundaries of his
responsibilities? I think in this area h-e has been a somewhat quicker learner
than he has been in other areas after the making of gaffs. I
think it has been gently pointed out to him that he is out of
his province and from the interests of Queenslanders
themselves, particularly the sugar industry, that his sally into
P. M. cont...: the area of foreign affairs has been singularly, or
would be singularly counter-productive. So, I think good sense
would prevail. We have seen another-example of his idiosyncratic
tendencies. I think those around him, if not from the point of
view of intellectual considerations issues, but if only from the
point of view of self-interest, have pointed out what he should
do.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you certain ' that your letter to
Mr Lange hasn't inspired him to bring forward the idea of
legislating to prevent ships of nuclear varieties coining to New
Zealand? Yes.
JOURNALIST: Prime Min-ister,.-was th-er-e : wny criticism of that
letter....... No. We are going well, aren't we.-
JOURNALIST: Have you had any response yet from Mr Lange?
Not that has been brought to my attention and I imagine
that if there had been a response, it would have been.
JOURNALIST: Did the American Government in any way try and get
you to write the letter?
No, of course not. Really that is somewhat of an insult to
the American adm-inistration. I am used to being insulted ryse3. f
I mean that is part of the game we play with one another but
they would have more sense than to suggest such a thing and I, of
course would not accept such a suggestion. There was made clear
in the statement that I issued a while ago after the letter had
been or the thrust of the letter had been leaked somewhere else
that in no sense was I acting as an emissary for anyone and
has been made quite clear from the beginning of this matter. T11e
issue is one between New Zealand and the United States and I di6
no more than to indicate to my good friend David * Lange that I was
going to the United States. I explained the position to him, as
had exactly in August in Port Moresby when we met and I was
wanting to know exactly what his position was so that when I was
in the United States I would be totally au f-ait with the position.
JOURNA LIST: Did the subject sorry, were you going to go on?
No, I think I have adequately covered it, don't you?
JOURNALIST: Was the subject of ANZUS canvassed in any way at the
Ministry meeting?
No. Let me be fair. I mean I don't want to appear as
though I've got off some imagined hoof that might be hanging
around out there. The Ministerial meeting hasn't finished, and so
if you have had some indication from some quarters that these
things are going to be raised, your exPectations are not
necessarily frustrated. I mean, I am going back.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, why was it necessary to release a
paraphrase of the letter? It seems a bit unusual.
Well the Unusual features of this began when somewhere cls
there was a release, either of the letter, or of an indication of
its contents. I strictly followed the proprieties, as I always
do, and I wrote privately to the Prime Minister of New Zealand,
and that was it. Now, we were faced with a situation w. here, for
reasons of which I am unaware, the letter Or an indication of its
contents were made available elsewhere. That generated some
speculation, totally ill-founded, both as to purpose and to
content and it seemed the best interests of Australia were served
by me bringing an end to that ill-founded speculation. I did
that.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it was leaked in Australia?
No, I don't. Have you got different ideas?
JOURNALIST: No
I mean, if you have, I would be interested to know. That's
all.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you-believe the Lange Government
will change its mind?
I don't know, and I have said from the beginning that this
is a matter for the Government of New Zealand. That has been my
position, the position of the Government of Australia, from the
very beginning. It is a matter for them. I have not sought
either in writing that letter or in any other way from the day I
first spoke with Mr Lange in New Guinea to try and tell them what
they should or had to do. It is a matter for New Zealand. That
is how it has been from the beginning. That is the way it should
remain.
JOURNALIST: Do you think that the Left is over-reacting then by
placing it upon the agenda for tomorrow's meeting?
What meeting tomorrow is this? It is their meeting. I
would think that they should put on the agenda of their meeting
whatever they want to put on. They have never asked me for advice
as to what they put on their agenda. It would be rather
interesting if they started doing it, but they haven't. There is
no Caucus meeting tomorrow. You don't want to believe the press.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible.
The Left I don't mind what they put on their agenda.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on another [ matter, does the Cabinet subcommittee
agree with Western Australian proposed land rights bill?
I think I heard something about Holding up there, so
perhaps with what is the last question and answer we can bring it
together. The position is this that in regard to the matter of
the veto rights of aboriginals, our position was made clear at the
latter part of last year. The joint statement by myself and Mr
Holding and Mr Burke and that is that we would not be supporting
that right of veto. Let me make clear that that was in the
context that there should be an appropriate tribunal mechanism
where the rights of people concerned, including aboriginals, to
put a point of view about the utilisation of land for mining
purposes would be ava-i-lable. A-nd ' at the meeting that we had the
other day the points of agreement between us and the West
Australian Government were made clear. There was no argument
about that. There were other areas in which there was not
agreement and in which there is to be further discussion between
us and the West Australian Government following further
consultation with the interested groups. Now, that is the
position. It is quite clear.