TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH JOHN LAWS, RADIO 2UE,
23 AUGUST 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
LAWS: OK, well you better tell them, because they'll
want to know one garlic tablet per morning?
PM: Yes, one garlic tablet after breakfast and you won't
get the flu.
LAWS: OK.
PM: You've got to do it every day, John.
LAWS: Really?
PM: Yes.
LAWS: All the time?
PM: All the time.
LAWS: OK, well I'll try it. Yesterday one of your many
Press Secretaries-
PM: Eh? I've only got two, mate.
LAWS: Well, one of them rang my only one and said that the
word was that I was pro pilots. Well, I just wanted to
clarify that, I hope he listens to you more than he listens
to me because that isn't the case. I am pro people getting
what they believe they're worth, if in fact they are worth
it, but that should surely be the criteria shouldn't it?
PM: Well, I guess we all tend to believe we're worth more
than the market can stand, so if it was just a question of
what you believed it wouldn't be a good test. I think the
real thing is what the community can stand, John, I think
that's the real thing, that's the issue here. I'm not, if I
may say so quickly, although I'm tough at the moment against
what the pilots are doing, I'm not anti pilot and I'm not
against people being paid a decent salary, but the big
thing, John, if they were to win this, the whole wage system
is dead and Australia is dead.
LAWS: Yes, well that's really the basis of the argument and
that's a very valid one. I mean, it's right and proper that
you did your best to dissuade them from going for what could
be seen by some as an excessive increase, being 30 percent,
but when you say you're not anti pilot, I'll tell you what
that some of the comments that you made in the newspapers in
the last couple of days, you could have fooled me and you
could have fooled the pilots.
PM: Well, what I'm against, and violently against, is what
the pilots are doing but why would anyone be against, anti
pilot. I mean, pilots have got a very important job in the
community, very important job, and I respect the job that
they do. But what I'm against is the blatant greed they're
exhibiting and the way in which they're going about this
exercise. LAWS: Yes, well I suppose there are plenty of other people
in the community who exhibit blatant greed. We see it time
and time again. we see it in the upper echelons of top
business management where, I believe, a chief executive in
the large Australian company now averages something like
$ 900,000 a year. I suppose that could constitute greed in
the eyes of some?
PM: I guess it could and in fact it does. I think many
executives have been greedy when you consider that the
people they employ, the ordinary wage and salary, your
ordinary listener, or his or her wife or husband, have
exhibited over the last six years a remarkable restraint
LAWS: Extraordinary restraint.
PM: If it hadn't been for what your listeners and their
wives and husbands have-done, we wouldn't have had a million
and a half more new jobs in this country. It's been the
restraint of your people, you know, you talk and represent
the average bloke and woman in the country, they've
exercised restraint and Australia's reaped the benefit.
That's what annoys me, whether it's a greedy executive or a
greedy airline pilot.
LAWS: But you don't come out against the greedy executives.
PM: Don't we? I mean
LAWS: Well, you don't stop them.
PM: Well they are not in the Conciliation and Arbitration
system, but no-one has been tougher than Paul Keating and I
and Bill Kelty in addressing the Business Council of
Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and
pleading with them to exercise restraint. But we haven't
got them in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
-3-
LAWS: Well, that's the whole point the pilots are making.
They choose now apparently not to be within that system,
which I suppose is a choice they're entitled to make isn't
it? PM: Yes, sure it's a choice they're entitled to make but
they've got to take the consequences. They're
LAWS: Absolutely and the consequences can be
disadvantageous to them.
PM: They can and will be. But just to get this into some
sort of context about what sort of conditions the pilots
were in before, could I just give you, John, a couple of
quotes from what their own former President had to say.
This was just a year ago in October. This is Captain
Fitzsimmons and this is what he's saying about them and I
just very brief quotes. He said I'm talking about the
agreements I've got within the Arbitration system, that's
what he's talking about when he said it contains and
maintains some of the best working conditions in the world
of aviation point one. Point two you're the only big
systems in the world who have a block guarantee of pay, ( c)
there is no other pilot group in the world that enjoys your
overall standard of pay protection. Now that's the
condition that they're in through the system.
LAWS: In fairness, that was said a year ago.
PM: That's what I said, I said it was a year ago.
LAWS: Yes, they might consider times have changed in a
year. But when you say the business executives are outside
the system, that's right, that's their choice to be outside
0 Atuhes trsaylsitaenm aanndd hIe womauyl d wehlalv e lotsheo ugbhyt iitt was the choice of any
PM: It's not a matter of choice as far as executives are
concerned. I mean, with employers you don't have the
Conciliation and Arbitration system setting the conditions
of executives and employers. It may be that, you know,
you'd like to have that but that is not the system but with
these people, they're in there and as a result of that
system operating in a centralised way, you've had a position
in Australia where you've had the containment of wages,
where the whole of Australia, every one of your listeners,
is better off because of the restraint that's been
exercised. Now, these people are in a situation where
they've got the benefits and if they are allowed to get away
with a 30 percent increase on conditions which, you know
what they are at the moment, an average of $ 80,000 a year
for less than ten hours a week flying.
LAWS: Yes, but I think that's a fairly facile argument.
-4-
P14: well, what's facile about it? They're boasting about it.
LAWS: Yes that's right, but they spend $ 42,000 of their own
money getting into a position to be able to do this sort of
job. They spend endless hours away from their family,
that's their choice, you know, I'm not siding with them,
that's their choice to do it. But
PM: But what about all the amount of money and time that
other people have to spend and not, not to work less than
ten hours a week at the job they've trained for.
LAWS: Yes, but that's physically sitting at the job.
obviously a lot of other time goes into it. Now you
PM: Not an enormous amount of time.
LAWS: Now listen you can fly an aeroplane because you said
you learnt in seven hours.
PM.: Yes. I'm not special about that.
LAWS: No, I believe you, I believe you.
PM4: I'm not special about that. Anyone can.
LAWS: That's right, but you know how to fly-an aeroplane.
I doubt you know how to fly a jumbo?
PM: Of course I don't.
LAWS: OK, but if you
P1M: is it being suggested in respect of flying today,
then don't bring me into it. I mean-
LAWS: Well you brought yourself into it.
PM: But I'm simply don't make any more out of what I did
John, about mentioning myself than I intended it meaning.
That is simply because I did learn to fly, I know all the
nonsense that exists about the mystery, the magic and the
glamour of flying. I mean, that's part of the problem.
Here are these people doing an important job for the
community, but has been surrounded about the fact of
flying, a glamour and a mystique, which is supposed to mean
that these people, now getting $ 80,000 a year on average,
for actually flying less than ten hours a week, that there's
something mystical and magical about it. The only point I
was trying to make no more and no less than this that
once you've learnt to fly you know that after all it's not a
terribly difficult thing to learn. what's then involved of
course is gaining more experience and it is a very
responsible job.
LAWS: And being checked every six months to see that you're
capable PM: what about the blokes, what about the blokes who
service the aeroplanes? The mechanics. All the years they
acquired, a five year apprenticeship and then more and more
experience getting up to actually servicing those planes
that the pilots and the passengers get into. Now if those
and they're not working eight hours a week they'll be
working the'best part of 40 hours a week and if any one, any
one of those mechanics who were in fact servicing the
aeroplanes didn't do their job properly, didn't do their job
properly, then the life of the pilot and the passengers is
as much at stake as if those pilots don't do it. But
LAWS: No, but can we talk about that? I fail to see that
there's anything terribly glamourous about hanging around
Bahrain airport for eight hours because there's been some
problem with an aeroplane there. I fail to see there's too
much glamour in trying to get an aeroplane out of the sky
that has had some monumental malfunction as we saw recently
and we're seeing time and time again. To me that's not too
glamourous, to me that's
PM: With these domestic pilots, I'm not sure how much time
they spend hanging around Bahrain. I mean they're not
really LAWS: We were talking about
PM: I'm talking about this dispute, these pilots and I'm
talking about comparing these fellows who actually fly no
more than ten hours a week, that there's something special,
mystical, glamourous abou. t them that entitles them, on their
average existing salary of $ 80,000 a year now to get
percent more. I'm saying compare them with the fellows
who've exercised the restraint, who if they didn't exercise
the same amount of care and commitment in servicing the
planes and getting them ready, would create just the same
sort of problem for passengers as pilots if they didn't
exercise their restraint.
LAWS: But what does that mean?
PM: It means
LAWS: The people who fuel the aeroplane, service the
aeroplane, should be making as much as the pilot?
PM: No it doesn't. It means that if they are prepared to
exercise the restraint that they are and which has brought
about a position where we're creating jobs more than twice
as fast as the rest of the world because the workforce is
exercising restraint for the benefit of Australians, then
-6-
these people who are also within the system of getting a
rate of pay which their own leaders have said is amongst the
best in the world. I mean, they shouldn't be entitled to
break the system because the simple fact, which every one of
your listeners must understand, is if they are allowed to
get out of the system, break it 30 percent increase or
anything like that 30 percent increase then the whole wage
system is broken
LAWS: That's right
PM: And then we will have the economy broken down,
inflation go rife, interest rates go absolutely through the
roof, the economy buggered.
-7
LAWS: Yeah, but if they're not worth it, and you don't
believe they are worth it, obviously, if they're not worth it,
then surely that should be negotiated between them and the
people who run the airlines?
PM: It should be negotiated within the system on my
judgement and if they're going to say ' no, we're just want a
straight power game. Okay, this remains a democracy where
people can opt out if they want to
LAWS: yeah..
PM: but,
LAWS: but you make it very difficult for them to
operate PM: they, they, they, they have been using their
power. They have been using their power. As far as the
airlines and the Government is concerned, our power will be
0 used. Not because I want to hurt an individual pilot, not
because I want to denigrate pilots or the profession of the
pilots, but because I want to protect the Australian economy.
That's paramount.
LAWS: Yeah. The situation as it develops, came at a very
unfortunate time for you inasmuch as the Government was
rolling along according to the stories that we hear from the
corridors of Canberra, you were on a high and very confident,
and why not? The Government was in great shape. So, it
arrived, as an election isn't very far away, at a pretty
unfortunate time to add insult to injury, didn't it?
PM: No, I don't see it that way at all. I simply repeat
what I said to you before, it would've been an unfortunate any
day or any week, this situation would've been unfortunate.
Because, there has been this overwhelming adherence by the
ordinary working men and women of this country, basic
acceptance by them, and by the community of the benefits of
restraint, and that's been enormously important in having a
situation where we've created the jobs and become a more
competitive economy; and any day that there had arisen a
situation where one group was going to threaten to destroy all
that would've been unfortunate. And I just, on this one, I
think that the Australian community will be overwhelmingly in
support of a situation where you have the Government trying to
protect the economy, and that's what's involved.
LAWS: We had an interesting day yesterday, when I looked
at the story from the other side, which I choose to do with as
many stories as I can and the reaction, in fact, from the
majority of listeners I couldn't get a bus driver. We had
all the lines open, all morning. I couldn't get a bus driver.
I spoke to a number, but I couldn't get one to agree that his
job was as responsible as flying an aeroplane. Do you regret
making that statement?
PM: No, no, no, no. Look, I don't regret trying to make
the point that I've been trying to make; and that is I repeat,
8-
I'm not trying to denigrate the responsibility of pilots.
What I'm saying is that there are many people in the
community, who if you used the test of responsibility for the
lives of others, would be able to use that argument.
Including, including,
LAWS: No, no, hang on. Be fair.
PM: No, I'm using the proposition
LAWS: yeah, but, I mean if you had a bingle in a bus,
chances are you're going to walk away. If an aeroplane falls
out of the sky, there's very little chance. I mean, there is
a difference, isn't there?
PM: But, it's the lives and safety of your passengers
are an issue; and let's go to the aeroplanes. I mean, of
course, every person with a greater or lesser degree has some
sort of apprehensions about when they're flying, but the point
I'm making is this: that the pilots are the ones, who are at
the end of the line and ultimately have the responsibility if
something goes wrong. But what about the people who have the
responsibility if there's anything every, anything goes wrong
with the plane?
LAWS: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. But,
PM: do, do you have..
LAWS: but I don't understand the point you're making.
Do you believe that they should be able to
PM: No. I'm simply..
LAWS: as much as the pilots?
PM: No, I'm simply..
LAWS: well, what's the point?
PM: The point is a simple one. That what the pilots are
attempting to use is the particular nature of their
occupation. Now, what I'm trying to say is firstly, in regard
to becoming a pilot, becoming a pilot: there's nothing
terribly flash about acquiring the basic qualifications of
becoming a pilot.
LAWS: To fly a little chipmunk?
PM: Of course. But what I'm saying is that..
LAWS: even I did that.
PM: Yeah. But when you get to the bigger planes it's
just a natural progression from actually learning to fly; and
you compare I mean, if you want to compare the blokes that
are flying today, with their predecessors, not Bob Hawke and
the Chipmunks, but with the people who are flying
9-
commercially. You know, in that early post-war period. You
look at the differences in flying today compared to then. The
facilitation for flying. Firstly, the sophisticated automatic
pilots that operate now, which are flying the plane, which are
actually flying the plane for most of the time. And now, the
radar. When these blokes' predecessors, here in Australia,
when they were founding the aviation industry in the post-war
period. Did they have radar? They had to fly through every
bit of bloody awful weather there was. No assistance in
avoiding all the toughness.
LAWS: Yeah but,..
PM: no sophistication
LAWS: fine,..
PM: but I'm simply making the point not to denigrate
these people but to say, that in terms of the conditions
under which they operate, it's a relatively easier situation
that their predecessors and I'm saying, in terms of the
welfare and safety of every single person that gets onto an
aeroplane, John, that from the un-heralded, un-glamorous
mechanic in the hangers, every minute he's working on those
planes has a responsibility which if not properly discharged,
can endanger the safety and life of the pilot
LAWS: absolutely, but..
PM: and, and, and in respect of those people, they
are not saying ' well, we are in the airline industry, there's
something magical about us'. They are working a full 38-hour,
36-hours a week or more, and..
LAWS: yeah, but
PM: and they are exercising restraint in regard to
what they get paid.
LAWS: Yeah, but they do alright. Can I just tell you
this? An aircraft re-fueler, thanks to penalty payments and
other allowances, earns sometimes a great majority of the
airline pilots. So, you know..
PM: Not a great majority. I wouldn't accept that.
There's people..
LAWS: well, I mean, there are airline pilots flying
for $ 31,000 a year. I spoke to a young bloke yesterday that
spent $ 42,000 his mother I spoke to $ 42,000 getting his
licences. He's now running up hours in the Western part of
Australia earning $ 16.00 an hour.
PM: Thats sort of thing's happening because people want
to get, I mean, why do they want to do it? There is, it goes
back to what I was saying, there is this glamour, there is
this mystique of being a pilot. Now, I can understand it
because it is a thrill. It is a real thrill. I know that.
10
LAWS: Absolutely. And I imagine that's why a lot of
people want to do it.
PM: And, and blokes are prepared to spend $ 40,000 or $ X
to satisfy their craving and their desire to be a pilot and
beyond them. But what I'm saying is that ' you spend what you
like to satisfy your craving and your quite understandable
thrill to become a pilot'. Beaut. Good. I can understand
it.
LAWS: And your desire to make a dollar?
PM: And, once you've done it though, don't think, my
dear boy or collection of boys, that you're going to wreck the
Australian economy. Pay what you like, if you want to satisfy
your craving and your desire and understandable aspirations to
fly an aeroplane; but don't come along to the Australian
people, to the Australian Government and this Prime Minister
and say ' because I've spent that money to satisfy my thrill
and aspirations to become a pilot, that you're going to wreck
the Australian economy'
LAWS: Yeah, yeah, but they're not saying that.
PM: They might not be saying it, but I'm telling you
what, that everyone else understands that if they're allowed
to get away with this, that's what will happen, because let
there be no doubts John, if the Australian people, through the
airline companies and this Government succumb to this threat
let there be no doubt about it
LAWS: even a 10% increase, that would wreck the
Australian economy we must be really heavily in the
balance if 10% increase in the airline pilots
PM: They're not talking about 10%, they are talking
about 30% and not being negotiated according to the
guidelines. LAWS: No, but they want to negotiate with their employers.
Now, if everyone says 10%, that's not going to wreck the
Australian economy?
PM: What I'm saying is that they've got to accept that
they'll do it within the guidelines. If what they are doing
is the exercise of power for an objective of 30% that's out!
If they want to have a negotiation, within the system, that's
open to them. They refused to do it. They said to the
Arbitration system ' that operates for anywhere else, not for
us, because we are pilots'. Well, I've got news for them.
They are pilots, they are important, they do a very, very,
very good job. But, because they happen to be pilots who've
satisfied a desire, a legitimate and understandable desire to
become pilots, and this thrilling and satisfying job of being
a pilot, because they've satisfied that desire, they are not
uniquely going to be able to wreck the Australian economy.
11
LAWS: No, because they go outside the guidelines, and
nobody has any argument with that. But when you stop and
think that the judges were outside the guidelines, and they
were, the Government, the Government
PM: the judges weren't within the guidelines. The
judges were within a system, the Remuneration Tribunal had a
system LAWS: yeah, but it's a pretty good remuneration..
PM: no, no..
LAWS: compared to what the others are getting.
PM: What I'm saying is that when the Remuneration
Tribunal for judges brought down their recommendation, we
wouldn't even go to the point of accepting that. They've had
to wait.
LAWS: That's right. But they've got 12 percent and
they've got some more coming and I think that the Family Court
Judges got 30 percent. Now that's outside the guidelines.
PM: It's not outside the system which operates for that
group of people
LAWS: That
PM: under the law.
LAWS: So they have a different set of guidelines.
PM: Of course they do.
LAWS: What about the-new Government....
4, PtMh: a t's a smJaurstt aan dm intuetlel, i ngj ucsto mmienn tc. a se, Y ouy ouha vken ow, you think
LAWS: Yours or mine?
PM: No, yours. That they are under a different set of
guidelines. LAWS: Well they are.
PM: Under the legislation, I mean, it's not our idea, or
some fancy idea we've thought up. There is a system under the
law which governs the way Judges are awarded. There is a
system. And the pilot can't get into the Judges Remuneration
Tribunal system. That's for Judges. For the pilots, there
is the Industrial Relations Commission. That's their system
where their guidelines operate.
LAWS: Yeah but you can't say that nobody can ever get
outside the guidelines.
12
PM: Well I can say in respect of the Judges that they
have their guidelines, under the Remuneration Tribunal which
would even go that far in, I can say in regard to wage and
salary earners, their system is the Industrial Relations
Commission and they operate within that. And I'm simply
saying... LAWS: But if they want to go outside they can go outside.
PM: They can, yes they can, the pilots can. They can go
outside, but they are not going to get support. They are not
going outside because they like the atmosphere out there,
they're going outside because they've got industrial muscle
and they say they're going to use that industrial muscle to
smash the system. They're not.
LAWS: Well when you say wage and salary workers are inside
the guidelines, why didn't you perform when sales executives,
U chief executives of companies went outside the guidelines?
PM: Because they're not in the system.
LAWS: Yeah, but they got out of the system.
PM: They were never in it.
LAWS: Of course they were. They were in it when they...
PM: Come on, lets have facts rather than unsubstantiated
opinion. LAWS: How do you know?
PM: I'm telling you that the managers that you're
talking about were never in the system. Chief executives of
companies have never been under an award in the system.
k LAWS: But how do you know that? How do you know that they
didn't start in a factory. You don't know where they started
of course they may have been in the system?
PM: I mean this is just talking about it in an earlier
stage of their career, of course you' re right, they've got
out... LAWS: work their way out of the system.
PM4: Yeah, but the pilots didn't. The pilots didn't
start as a first year pilot in the system and when they became
a senior pilot, out of the system. This statement here by
Fitzsimmons, applied to all of them from the junior to the
seniors, they didn't go outside the system. They got the best
conditions in the world, John, by this statement, in the
system LAWS: Yeah, okay, but a lot of people start in the system.
I mean I used to belong to Actors and Announcers Equity,
right, so I was in the system. I worked my way out of the
13
system, this place is full of people who have worked their way
out of the system. You can do that. If I can do that, and
you don't go crook at me, or you haven't yet, well why can't
they do it. If they choose to, they might be wrong and they
might lose, they might be worse of f, they mightn't get any
increase but surely in a democratic country they have the
right to try.
PM: And they can if they are doing the sort of thing
that you're talking about, progressing up the scale... . yeah but
sure they do. I mean if a pilot converts from being a pilot
and goes up in the company to becoming a manager, then he's
out of the system, he is. These people are not, they are
staying as pilots in your system, that's the...
LAWS: Okay well lets go back to me.
PM: You're talking about one system and I'm talking
about the Conciliation and Arbitration system which is the
system which determines the wages and salaries and conditions
of people employed under awards in that system. If they move
out of that employment relationship as pilots can do, move up
to become managers, they are out of that system and then their
salary is determined according to a decision by the Board or
the top management, and that's perfectly right but while they
remain as pilots operating in a wage and salary relationship
then the Industrial Relations award covers them.
LAWS: Okay, well I started in the system as a broadcaster,
and I'm still a broadcaster, but I went outside the system.
what.. PM: You sure did. The thing is that when you started,
if you were under the award, I don't know whether you were.
LAWS: I was.
S PM: Then your wage and salaries were determined by the
IF Award. I don't know what you got paid. Then as you went up
LAWS: eleven quid.
PM: Eleven quid, and it's a bit more than that now,
because you are not only an employee, I don't know what your
relationship is, but you're a part owner..
LAWS: No. No, I'm not.
PM: Well whatever you are, you are not now simply an
employed servant under an award, and this is right, I mean
LAWS: Because I got out of the award, but why can't
anybody, I'm not saying they're right, you know
PM: Everyone can do it, and I'm saying in respect of the
pilot..
14
LAWS: let them do it.
PM: Let them do it, I'm saying in terms of moving up out
of the ranks of the employed that's what they do. We're
talking about those who stay within the employment
relationship but if a pilot, just take Bill Smith. He's a
pilot now.
LAWS: Right.
PM: Why when he's a pilot, what his union has chosen to
do, and has got the best system in the world is to say, Bill
Smith and all his mates have said ' we are a union, we are
operating within the Arbitration system'. We'll determine
Bill Smith's wages and conditions by operating within the
Conciliation and Arbitration system and Bill Smith does it
he operates that way. But then Bill Smith, he's a John Laws of
the air, not of the airwaves, he's a John Laws of the air,
he's got a bit more talent, he's got a bit more ambition, so
he ceases to be a pilot and he goes up, he goes into the
management structure. He's then out of the award system, the
Conciliation and Arbitration system. He's had this upward
mobility that you properly referred to. once he's moved out
of that employment relationship, goes up there then his
salaries and conditions are determined as a matter of
negotiation by the board of the company as other executives
are. So John, there is the fluidity, if Bill Smith the pilot,
changes from being a pilot, moves up, expands, gets to the
top, then he's out of the Conciliation and Arbitration system.
But while he is operating as a salaried employee, then how
he's chosen and how his union has chosen to operate to
determine that, is within the Conciliation and Arbitration
system by award.
LAWS: Okay, well we would assume that the fellow who runs
Australian Airlines
lip LAWS: Okay. Well we would assume that the fellow who runs
Australian Airlines, good bloke, James Strong, is an employee.
To my knowledge, he doesn't have a share of Australian
Airlines. He's an employee. I think he gets about 400 or
450?
PM: No. He is a contracted management salary person. And
what has been done there is, as consistently been done, is
they haven't been under awards, never been under awards. It
is a matter of their salary being determined by the Government
and the Board. Now what we've done, and what I know you'd
agree with, that you would say that Government enterprises,
while they exist, should be competitive, should be
bureaucracies, they should'be competitive.
LAWS: Absolutely.
PM: And what we've done there is to say, alright, we've
looked at what's been paid in other enterprises, as we did
with the bank. We had a situation where we had the Governor
of the Reserve Bank getting about a tenth of what was being
15
paid to bosses of the private banking system. So you had to
have a system where in these enterprises your top management
was getting some sort of comparability with the people that
they were, you know, competing with and, in some cases, almost
controlling. Now with Strong, the head of TAA, well it's
Australian now, it was TAA.
LAWS: Yes.
PM: There nothing was changed in terms of the way the salary
was determined. It wasn't under an award, it was a contracted
salary position.
LAWS: Yes, but you had to pay him to keep him?
PM: We had to pay and if we were going to have a situation
where we thought we could get the best.
LAWS: That's right. So you had to pay him to keep him
O PM: Yes.
LAWS: because his service was invaluable.
PM: Yes. And in the case of the pilots, we have paid a
situation which has kept them all, in which they have said
themselves that it's the best in the world. The ego about now
is saying, we want to use a position of very, very
considerable power to extract a lot of 30 percent and knowing
that in doing it we wreck the system. Now there is no
comparison between what the impact of going to a 30 percent to
these fellows would be and what was necessary to pay the heads
of public enterprises like the Reserve Bank, the Commonwealth
Bank and so on.
LAWS: Yes.
PM: No comparison.
O LAWS: Yes.
PM: I'd pay them what's necessary to make those enterprises
competitive. That's not going to wreck the system.
LAWS: Tell me this. If an airline pilot with twenty years
experience, right, fairly valuable sort of bloke to have
around, one would think, if he were to go along to Ansett or
to Australian Airlines and say well look I want to stay, can
we negotiate a personal contract with me. There's nothing
wrong with that?
PM: But what will happen now..
LAWS: I mean, he put the contract ( inaudible)
PM: There will be negotiations between the airlines and their
pilots. I mean, the Federation, in this sense, will be
irrelevant. The Federation won't be negotiating with the
airlines and provided that any increase that's awarded doesn't
16
give increases in their salary rates outside the guidelines,
then they may well negotiate positions which will give them
significant increase in income. But it won't come, it won't
come, John, from getting salary increases in their rates
outside the guidelines. They will have to keep within them.
But what the airlines may very well do is to say what we want
you to do is to not fly something less than ten hours a week,
we'd like you to fly something like twenty hours a week. Now
if you get an increase in salary, in rates, in accordance with
the guidelines and they, in fact, negotiate a significant
increase in hours as could reasonably be done, they may well
get an increase in income, a significant increase in income,
but it won't be what they're talking about now a 30 percent
increase in salary on something less than ten hours a week.
LAWS: So you mean it would require an increase in
productivity? PM: Yes. A significant increase in productivity.
LAWS: Are the judges working harder?
PM: The judges are working very, very hard.
LAWS: Are they working harder than they were working before
they got their 30 percent increase?
PM: Well, they didn't get a 30 percent increase. And what
the judges have done is operate within the legal framework of
salary determination which applies to them. That's what
they've done. They haven't gone outside it. They haven't
said, alright, we're going to, you know, Jack up, only work
half the schedule in overtime or less than that, we're only
going to work eight hours a week.
LAWS: So they don't have to increase their productivity?
PM: Well, they deal, as expeditiously as they can, with a
O njuumdgbeesr oonf lyc awsoesr k beefiogrhet thhoeumr. s aA nwede ki. s anyone suggesting that
LAWS: Not so far?
PM: No.
LAWS: Not so far?
PM: No.
LAWS: I don't know that anybody's analysed it. Maybe
somebody ( inaudible)
PM: Well, the Remuneration Tribunal has and has made a
decision, or make a recommendation, that they should have got
a much greater increase and we didn't do it.
LAWS: Yes. Strong story this morning, but only rumour so it
should be broached. Is there any truth in the story that the
Australian Government's going to underwrite the airlines for
17
any losses incurred?
PM: Underwrite them.
LAWS: Yes?
PM: There's no question of underwriting them. If they are
operating in a situation where they are going to incur
enormous losses and they come to us with a situation which
says, well, we want this to be taken into account in regard to
charges which we put upon them, well they can put that case.
We have given no commitment about that at all.
LAWS: Would you be inclined to give them a hand?
PM: I'm not making any commitment about that. They raised
the point and I said, well, this dispute is on, it's a
question of principle, let's go into it and we hope we can fix
it, you know, quite quickly. If you want to raise that later,
if it's a long dispute, raise it, but without commitment,
because they understand there's a question of principle here
which applies, not just to the pilots, but to all of their
employees and to the whole community. And that's a quite
hypothetical thing that's been raised. I've said no
commitment about that. If this goes on for a long time, let's
look at it then.
LAWS: Yes. But not beyond the realms of possibility?
PM: Well, they're perfectly entitled to raise it, but no way
which in this early stage there'd be anything be done. I
mean, if you were looking at a situation where it went on and
on, then they would be entitled to raise this with us and we'd
look at it because we've got a position here, of course, John,
as I mean you've been generous enough to concede right
through, I mean there's been no argument about us on this
issue. And that is that the whole economic interest of this
country is at stake here and when that is the case, well when
the Government has got to be prepared to look at all the
ramifications to defend the Australian economy.
LAWS: Yes. How do you believe this will end?
PM: It will end, in my judgement, by a negotiation either
between the companies and their individual pilots or a
negotiation within the arbitration system by their return and
a negotiation which, in my judgement, would mean an increase
in salary rates. When I'm saying salary rates, not out of
line with the guidelines. In other words, 6 percent or that
sort of order. But with the possibility of an enormous
increase in productivity by the pilots having to agree to work
longer hours. Now, in one way or another, I think that's the
basis of the outcome and that is a perfectly proper one. The
other way is that the guidelines have been adhered to, but
there is an increase in the hours worked, an increase in
productivity and a benefit for pilots in a sense, for the
airlines and for the paying customers because if you get a
significant increase in productivity that will have its impact
18
upon the fare situation.
LAWS: So when the dust settles, will the pilots be better
off? PM: Well, if they accept that working for longer hours, for
increased income, means they'll be better off, then answer to
that is yes. And I don't think really, John, whether we have
some arguments at the edge about the ten hours, or eight to
ten hours, one can hardly argue that either absolutely or in
comparison with their colleagues around the world, that they
are overworked. I mean, they say that themselves that they
are not by comparison with the rest of the world. So if you
have an outcome in which they work longer hours and get
greater income as a result of working longer hours and you get
greater productivity, then everyone will be better off.
LAWS: Do you feel inclined to take a call or two from a
listener? PM: Sure, John, sure, sure.
LAWS: Well you have to stick those funny headphones on and
I'll pop one up.
PM: Okay.
LAWS: You right for it.
PM: Either one of these.
LAWS: Yes, anything that's got a noise coming out of it.
It's about eight minutes to ten. My guest is the Prime
Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke. If you'd like to talk to
him, and I see the board is full, keep trying, 929 5555.
Hello. CALLER: Hello, is that you, John.
S LAWS: Yes. The Prime Minister is here.
CALLER: Thank you very much.
PM: Hello.
CALLER: Good morning.
PM: Good morning.
CALLER: I can't understand you talking about greed and
restraining ourselves because, now what about this $ 30,000 for
stamps and unlisted stationery that the politicians have got.
Do you think that's restraining. Don't you think that's
greed? PM: No, I don't because it's not worth a..
LAWS: stamp?
19
PM: it's not worth a cent or a stamp to politicians of
either side. But the politicians on both sides will be using
this for the purpose of communication with the electorate.
They don't get a single cent into their income. So, I mean,
how is that greed. They don't make a penny out of it. What's
involved is communicating with their electorate. So there's
no question of greed.
CALLER: They most make a penny, but it is
PM: Well how, if they don't make a penny themselves, if they
don't make a penny, how is it greed.
CALLER: But this end result?
PM: That's the end result. If it doesn't get into their
pockets, if they're not personally better off for one cent,
how is it greed.
CALLER: You don't....... stinks. They won't let the people,
they've got to get in touch with them for their next reelection,
you see and that's what it's all about and you talk
about the economy of Australia, don't you think it's a bit
late?
PM: No, I don't. I think, in fact, that anything that can be
done to enable a greater communication between electors and
those who are elected, whether it's a Labor Member of
Parliament, a Liberal or a National Party. I think anything
that increases communication is a very good and a sensible
thing and I hope that all sides of politics, not just my own,
I hope that the Liberals, the Nationals, the Democrats, I hope
they'll all use it because in the end we're going to have
better Government if there's more communication between those
who are elected and those who elect them.
CALLER: Look, I know dozens of people that get literature
through the mail and they don't even read it. It's waste of
U paper, waste of money and you're always talking about this
glamour and magical bit. You place so much importance on
glamour? PM: Well, I don't really. I mean, John has known me, for
instance, I know John, how long does it go back.
LAWS: Twenty-five, twenty-six.
PM: Twenty-five years. And I think John would tell you that
I'm not a flash sort of bloke. I mean, the glamour and all
that does with this sort of thing has never been part of the
thing that turns me on whether when I was President of the
ACTU or when I've been a Member of Parliament. All the pomp
and ceremony is the part of the job that, you know, leaves me
for dead. All the nineteen gun salutes, all that sort of
thing, it means nothing to me I can assure you and, I mean, I
think John can confirm that. It's not part of my bag.
LAWS: Well why did you keep bringing it up about the pilots?
20
PM: No, look, she, can I just, is it Mrs, who is it, Mrs.
LAWS: We don't know.
PM: Well, Mrs or whatever. I just don't like saying
nothing, I'd like to know your name.
LAWS: Ma'am, I always call them Ma'am.
PM: Ma'am. Okay. Ma'am. I really am not trying to say that
there isn't, you know, real legitimate reasons for pilots
feeling that there is something, you know, special about their
job. I mean, I can, the only reason I mentioned that I
learned to fly myself was for no more and no less a reason
than to say this. That I understand, you know, the attraction
of flying. It just is a magnificent feeling to get up there
in an aeroplane and fly. I mean, it just is a magnificent
feeling and there has been projected in all the literature, I
El mean, you don't see novels and you don't see advertisements
about aircraft mechanics, the people who make the plane safe.
I mean, what the advertising, all the glamour is about the
pilot. Now that's understandable because that's the bloke
that's up there, that's the one you see. There's no glamour
about the bloke who slogs away day after day, out there in the
hangers, making the aeroplane safe. And I'm simply saying
that there is this mystique and glamour about the fact of
being a pilot. Now that's alright, I'm not worried about
that, but I don't want that translated into a situation where
because of that people think that they can move from that to
bust the Australian economy. That's the only point I'm making
that it is a very important job. I'm not dismissing that.
CALLER: But two standards. one that suits you....... judges
and it's not saying that judges don't deserve their right.
I'm not saying the pilots don't deserve theirs. But what I'm
saying is that there seems to be two standards.
PM: No, well there's not. I mean, this is where, with
respect, Ma'am, you're wrong. In regard to the judges, we
have, under the law, under the law, a Remuneration Tribunal
and under that Remuneration Tribunal the question of salaries
of judges is considered.
LAWS: And, Ma'am, with respect, that law was in place before
this Prime Minister came to power.
CALLER: Oh, yes, yes. Well I'm not, I couldn't, I don't want
to get personal about these things.
LAWS: No, well let's not. I think the questions have been
answered and we've got a lot of people waiting. Please don't
say I gave you short shrift because that's not my intention,
but there are a lot of people waiting. I think you made your
point. Hello, hello. Just hang on, just hang on, we'll tidy
up that line. Yes, go for your life.
CALLER: John, look I'm disgusted. This is quite a unique
21-
industry, this airline industry.
LAWS: Okay, well you talk to the Prime Minister, not me.
CALLER: Prime Minister.
PM: Yes.
CALLER: We're in quite a unique situation. Look the aviation
industry PM: Who's we?
CALLER: Well, the aviation industry in Australia who's going
into deregulation next year.
LAWS: Are you a pilot?
CALLER: No, I'm not a pilot. I'm within the industry.
PM: Well what do you do in the industry, mate?
CALLER: An engineer.
PM: An engineer.
CALLER: Yes. Are you with one of the major companies.
CALLER: Yes, I am.
LAWS: You're one of the good blokes then. The Prime Minister
likes you. You keep the aeroplanes up there.
PM: I mean, when you say you're an engineer, do you maintain
the aeroplanes?
CALLER: Yes, I do, yes.
PM: Yes, yes, good.
CALLER: We are just as skilled as any engineer in the world.
At the moment we are suffering crisis because our engineers
are not getting paid enough within Australia and overseas
airlines are poaching us to other airlines in the industry and
we just can't compete.
PM: Well, of course, that's not right. What is happening, in
fact, that, as you know, or at least, I mean, I'm not asking,
no, which of the two airlines do you work with?
CALLER: Well, I'm not going to go into that.
PM: No, no, but I don't want to know, no, I can't identify
you, but it's relevant to my answer, which of the two airlines
do you work with?
CALLER: Private side of it, how about put it that way.
LAWS: That'll do, the private side.
22
PM: You work for Ansett.
CALLER: I never said anything.
PM: Well, no, but see what I'm getting at is, I'm not trying
to identify you and I never could, but I'm simply making the
point that, in fact, the Australian airline industry is
attracting, because of the quality of its service, we do work
for international airlines. Now I know it is the case that
some of the airlines would like to be able to pay fellows who
are, in fact, employed as maintenance engineers, they'd like
to pay them more because, in fact, there's a, you know,
relevant shortage and so on. But they haven't. I mean, what
they've done is they've stayed with the airlines and we are,
in fact, not only doing our own work but doing some of the
work of others from overseas. Now, look, I would like, I
mean, if you are in fact working as an engineer, a maintenance
engineer, with Ansett, as you suggest, I would like, and I'm
sure a lot of us would like a situation where you could, in
fact, be paid more. But there are a whole lot of people in
the Australian community who, over the last six years, could
have been paid more if they'd just exercise their muscle.
They could have gone out and exercised their muscle and wages
could have been higher. But, in fact, they haven't done that
and, in the result, we've had one and a half million new jobs
created right around the Australian economy which is a rate of
job creation more than twice as fast as the rest of the
industrialised world. Why? Because the organised wage and
salary earners of this country have exercised restraint, as I
say, a matter which John Laws very generously has consistently
recognised. But the community has benefitted because people
have exercised restraint. It's not a question of saying that,
you know, ideally we wouldn't like to pay more, we'd like to
do that wherever it's warranted, but, in the end, the great
bulk of Australian workers have accepted that they don't only
have to look at their own immediate interests, but whether
they're going to create a situation where there's more
employment for themselves, for their kids and so on. Now
that's the balance.
CALLER: I understand that, Prime Minister, but with due
respect, Qantas is sending 747' s to be maintained all over the
world because we can't do it ourselves. The skilled engineers
are leaving in droves because they're not getting competitive
wages with what they're getting overseas. They're leaving
Australia, I'll tell you now, they're leaving Australia in
droves. I'm not talking about one or two, I'm talking about
PM: Yes, but let's give the whole picture rather than part of
it. It's always, you know, an argument. I mean, I've been
around in public life for thirty years and I know how easy it
is to have one side of an argument. But also you've got a
situation where people are coming to Australia. It's not just
simply a question of people, you say leaving the job, they're
also people coming here. And Australia is not the only place
which has got skilled people. There are others who have got
skills overseas and are wanting to come to Australia and are
23
coming. Now if you, in the end, stripped of everything else,
your argument is simply this. If you've got power, if you as
a worker or a union has got power, use it to get more money
because that's what's necessary.
LAWS: Yes, Is it fair to say, is it fair to say power really
and I know you'd like to be fair. What about the difference
between power and talent?
PM: But, look, that's what I said in the first part of his
answer to question. I would love to have a situation where
everyone that's got the talent, that's qualified themselves,
could get the sort of show which they think, you know, that a
nice lovely person to be entitled to. Now that would be
beaut. But in, for god's sake, in this tough competitive
world we can't just let our wages system blow out here. Look,
we tried it once and it was in this decade, in 1981, this
ideal was applied. Just let it blow, don't have centralised
wage fixation, don't have guidelines, don't have principles,
just let the negotiation go and what happened. Well, in other
words, we don't have to be theoretical about this. Just at
the beginning of this decade that happened, wages blew out by
seventeen percent, the economy collapsed, we got the worst
recession in fifty years, we got double-digit unemployment and
inflation and the whole economy collapsed. The worst
recession in fifty years when what happened is what you're
saying. Just don't worry about principles, don't worry about
guidelines, let it go. Well, my friend, I am not prepared to
let it go.
CALLER: I don't expect you to let it go, Prime Minister, but
what I'm trying to say to you is we are in a field of
international competitiveness here at the moment. We're not
just talking about average Australians. If an average plumber
here could walk to New Zealand, fair enough. But the
engineers and pilots are in a field which is up for grabs by
international carriers every day?
oil PM: Look, as far as the pilots are concerned, was it said
before, the day they, when was there stoppage, that we had,
that Ansett and TAA had a shortage of pilots. Was that said?
CALLER: Yes, it was. ( inaudible) pilots at the moment?
PM: You are saying that we couldn't operate Ansett and TAA
because of a shortage of pilots. There was an effective
shortage of pilots which were stopping it operating. Now you
know that that's not right.
LAWS: Not right.
PM: It's not right. The simple fact is that the pilots
wanted more money and it wasn't a situation where Ansett and
TAA had to be offering more to keep their system operating.
LAWS: That's why they don't have to do it.
PM: And, in fact, what the pilots said, look, we think we're
-24
in a pretty strong position and we want 30 percent increase on
top of our average $ 80,000. And what the airlines have said,
we might have given in to you before mates, we may have given
in to you before, but it's a different baligame now and it is.
Now, look I'm not unsympathetic to what you're saying about
the engineers because you are right in saying that a very
important job, you know, that it's competitive, but the
points that you're not realising are, in fact, because of the
quality of the people we've got here, we are doing, in fact,
overseas work. We could do more if we had more people,
there's no doubt about that. But we are training more and
we're getting people from overseas. It's not a one way
traffic and if, you know, there was a capacity to pay more,
you would do it, but what's been worked out between the unions
and the airlines is a restructuring under the restructuring
processes which will go a considerable way towards meeting the
legitimate concerns of maintenance engineers in the industry.
CALLER: I hope that we can keep what engineers we have here
and the skilled ones at that
PM: Sure.
CALLER: but I feel that if we don't this country is not
going to be able to compete in an area which is becoming more
competitive day by day and I feel that if we don't do
something to try and maintain our standard, I think we will be
falling short of what average Australians would expect.
PM: The standards will be maintained by the whole award
restructuring process which will mean, not only more pay
according to the restructural principles and the guidelines of
the Commission, but, importantly, we will have a situation in
which the whole training and retraining processes will be
facilitated which means you'll get even better training, more
flexibility on the job and more satisfying work. That's
precisely what's being done now under the principles. And
under the wage fixing principles, we're about getting better
training, more satisfied employees, better remunerated
employees in a way which is going to benefit the whole
economy. That's what's happening in the rest of the workforce
and we want the pilots to understand that they can't be in a
category of their own.
LAWS: Okay. We've got to leave you. We'll take another
quickie here. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, John.
LAWS: Yes.
CALLER: Yes. Could I speak to the Prime Minister.
LAWS: He's right here.
CALLER: Hello.
PM: G'day.
25
CALLER: Yes. Look, I'm an airline pilot. Well I was an
airline pilot until last night. I'd just like to query what
you're saying about flying being glamorous. I don't think
there's much glamour
LAWS: Keep your voice up a bit, you're a bit quiet.
6,
* 1
26
CALLER: About pilots being glamorous. It is not glamorous
at all.
PM: How long have you been flying for?
CALLER: I've been flying for about seventeen years'now.
PM: How many years?
CALLER: Seventeen.
PM: Seventeen. And what rank did you have?
CALLER: I don't think it's applicable.
PM: I really want to be responsible and positive in my
reply to you. After seventeen years what rank did you have?
CALLER: I don't think that's applicable.
o LAWS: How much money were you making?
CALLER: I'm making $ 45,000 a year. or I was till
yesterday. I've just been offered a job outside the
industry yesterday for $ 140,000 a year. My suggestion is to
virtually any pilot out there that they should look outside
the industry because they're wasting their talents in the
airline industry.
PM: I think, my friend, if I could just interrupt you if
you're earning $ 45,000 year and you've now been offered
$ 140,000 my recommendation is you're a mug if you don't
take it. Go and take it.
CALLER: What I'm trying to say to you though is that the
majority of airline pilots are highly intelligent, skillful
people, and most of them have management experience.
PM: Now come on. Most of them have management experience.
~ JJ Look my friend, I'm prepared to accept everything you've
said, that you are a pilot, you earn $ 45,000 after seventeen
years and you've just been offered $ 140,000. I'm prepared
to accept all that because I've got no alternative but to
accept it. I will not accept a blatantly absurd proposition
that most of the pilots have had management experience.
That my dear friend is absolute bloody nonsense and you know
it. CALLER: No, I don't.
PM: Well tell me. OK. On what do you base the
proposition that the great majority of pilots have had
management experience?
CALLER: What do you think flying in a cockpit means?
PM: You say managing the crew? I will accept that.
-27
CALLER: And it's highly dedicated, You are constantly
checked every six months. Your job is on the line every six
months. I wish your job was on the line every six months
because you wouldn't be there if
PM: Well that's a very intelligent intervention. Let me
say that I operate under a system where I've had to put my
job on the line, I've had to put my job on the line, go for
an election and so far it's every time. We'll see what
happens next time. But I don't think your case is helped by
that gratuitous insult.
CALLER: I'm sure you are the ones who started the insults.
PM: I'm not. Because my friend, what you don't understand
is that I do have a high regard for the job that pilots do.
You'd have to be out of your mind not to have a high regard
for the job that pilots do. All I'm about is not to
denegrate pilots but to try and get some perspective, get it
into perspective. The job that you do, or that you used to
do before you go out to do this other one
LAWS: What's the new job, out of interest?
CALLER: Managerial.
LAWS: Beg your pardon.
CALLER: It's managerial.
LAWS: What sort of management?
PM: There's a difference between managing a crew in an
aeroplane, which is very important and managing outside.
What sort of job is it?
CALLER: As I said, it was managerial in marketing.
PM: That's beaut. I think you should do it. I'd hope
you'd feel this, that You, know I, as a passenger, I've
flown probably more miles than 99.5% of people in Australia.
I know the importance of pilots. I respect them. But I
just want you and the Australian community to get this in
perspective. There are a hell of a lot of people in the
community whose contribution is important. Every time
you've got into that aeroplane, as you know and I don't
think you'd dispute this with me every time you've walked
up the steps into that aeroplane you know better than anyone
that your life, your safety, as well as that of your
passengers, has depended upon the quality of the work that's
been done by mechanics in those hangars. Those people,
those people have had to do five years training and
apprenticeship and acquire a hell of a lot of experience to
get that position where they are in fact maintaining and
servicing your planes.
-28
CALLER: Can I just butt in there. I started off being an
engineer. I had a look at the conditions and salaries and I
thought I'd be an airline pilot.
PM: How did you your engineering? By apprenticeship?
CALLER: By apprenticeship.
PM: How many years did that take?
CALLER: I didn't finish it because I could see that
PM: How many years apprenticeship did you do?
CALLER: I beg your pardon.
PM: How many years apprenticeship did you do?
CALLER: I think it was about nine months.
PM: You think it was about nine months. You're not sure.
I see. OK. Where did you do it?
CALLER: 17 years ago.
PM: Did you do it with an airline?
CALLER: No, I didn't.
PM: So after nine months what you said to me, you were an
engineer before you became a pilot.
LAWS: He was an apprentice.
PM: But now you are a person who did nine months
apprenticeship. You said to me, to John Laws and to some
hundreds of thousands of people, before you became a pilot
you were an engineer. It turns out you did a nine months'
apprenticeship. Is that right?
CALLER: No. What I'm saying is
PM: I'm asking a question. I'm not trying to be difficult.
You said you were an engineer before you became a pilot.
To try and be constructive, I was trying to get the
background. CALLER: I've got a choice haven't I.
PM: Wait a minute. You've also got the choice of putting
it straight. You've said you were an engineer. I asked you
how you got there apprenticeship. You said you did nine
months' apprenticeship. Does doing nine months'
apprenticeship make you an engineer does it?
CALLER: No.
29
PM: Well why did you say you were an engineer?
CALLER: You haven't listened to what I'm trying to say.
You don't understand what I'm trying to say.
PM: I really want to be helpful to you and to listeners.
Just tell me how you became an engineer. You did nine
months' apprenticeship.
CALLER: I started an apprenticeship, right, but I decided
from that point, after about nine months, it was going to
PM: But you said you were an engineer. Were you or were
you not an engineer or were you a person who did nine
months' apprenticeship?
CALLER: If that's your clarification then
PM: It's your clarification mate. You came onto this
program, apparently seriously to talk about an issue in
which I'm desperately concerned. John Laws is concerned and
so are his listeners. You purported to have something to
say about this, that you were a pilot for 17 years, before
that you said you were an engineer, so you could talk about
the relationship between engineers and pilots. Then I find
out CALLER: I'm not talking about that at all. You still
don't understand. You don't seem to want to understand.
PM: I want to understand my friend whether you were an
engineer which is what you said.
CALLER: I've told you that I was an apprentice.
PM: Nine months' apprentice and you say that makes an
engineer. OK.
CALLER: I have never said that I was
PM: I don't know John, what did you hear?
LAWS: Yes, I heard that. I think we'll just give that a
miss. You've been having such a good time you've forgotten
what time it is. Barrie Cassidy is ripping his hair out.
Can we take one quick one?
PM: Sure.
LAWS: one quick one. Hello.
CALLER: Hello John. I'd like to take the Prime Minister up
on three points that he's mentioned this morning if you'd be
happy to give me the time to do so. Firstly he's made
considerable mileage out of the fact that pilots were quite
happy to take full advantage out of the wage indexation
system and the arbitration system for the last few years and
are now prepared, or now want to get out of that system and
go for broke. I'd like to refer him to the fact that
between November ' 85 and the middle of last year politicians
received the same national wage increases as the rest of the
workforce give or take a few percentage points and they're
only very minor points. I have the figures right in front
of me here. Early this year, in March in fact, the rest of
the workforce were awarded $ 10 per week out of the national
wage indexation system. The politicians in January of this
year got 11.8% and with the further prospect of 10.9% in
January 1990 and a further 90.8% in January 1991. Don't you
think the Prime Minister is being a little bit hypocritical
to say that we want the best when they themselves have
benefitted from that wage indexation system for the last
four years, but has taken the pilots to get a compounded
increase of 36%?
PM: Absolutely on the contrary my friend. What has in fact
happened is that time after time the Government has knocked
back the recommendations for increases for Members of
Parliament. In fact to the point where the Rem uneration
Tribunal has become significantly frustrated and said what's
the point. What we in fact did in the light of
recommendations for significantly greater increases than we
were prepared to accept and operating under the system which
was set up to determine the remuneration of Members of
Parliament, we then, in an attempt to get a lesser outcome
than had been recommended by the Independent Remuneration
Tribunal, we took the matter to the Conciliation and
Arbitration Commission so that the decision that would be
made would be one which would be regarded and endorsed by
the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as it then was
now the Industrial Relations Commission would be endorsed
by them as being consistent with the wage fixing principles.
So the history is one of knocking back increases by the
legally established Independent Remuneration Tribunal,
knocking them back because they were too high and could
upset the general wage fixing system and then they've
continued to recommend larger increases, then taking those
to the Industrial Relations Commission to get them to give
El, decisions which they would regard as being consistent with
the wage fixing principles. That is the fact.
CALLER: But Mr Prime minister, during those four years that
you picked up the national wage increases like the rest of
the workforce, do you think you were the only group in the
community that had to knock back higher wage rises that you
would've otherwise have been granted?
PM: What I'm saying is that everything that the Members of
Parliament did was in accordance both with the Independent
Tribunal in fact not in accordance refuse to accept
the degrees of increases that they nominated and would only
take increases that were endorsed by the Commission. That's
what I'm saying and that's not a question of opinion. John
knows, you know that that's a fact.
LAWS: Yes, that is fact. I mean you can't deny it, it's
fact.
31
CALLER: I'm not denying that you've taken what your own
tribunal has recommended. But there seems to be a double
standard once again that just because you have a tribunal
that says that you deserve a pay rise but the rest of the
workforce doesn't deserve it, it seems to be
PM: It's not a double standard. We're saying in respect of
the rest of the workforce that that's exactly what we want
them to do and to the great and overwhelming credit of the
workforce that's what they've done.
CALLER: The double standard is that you accused pilots
before of wanting the best of both systems. You said they
were quite happy to take what they could get out of the wage
indexation system for four years but now they want to opt
out of that system when it suits. Don't you think you have
the best of both worlds?
I) PM: On the contrary my friend. I mean obviously you don't
want to hear what I'm saying. John understands what I'm
saying, I'm sure listeners do. We have in fact not opted
out of the system. On the contrary. We have denied
ourselves what the system has offered to us and said no, we
are not going to do that, we will not have anything more
than the Arbitration Commission will endorse.
CALLER: Obviously we'll just have to agree to disagree on
that one.
PM: Sure.
LAWS: Listen, we've got to call it a day because I've kept
the Prime Minister waiting too long. Perhaps you'd like to
talk to me about it later and I'll do my best to give you a
hand if I can. Prime Minister, for me it's been a pleasure.
I trust it's been a pleasure for you.
PM: It has indeed John. It's always a pleasure. Thank you
iI, very much indeed.
LAWS: I'll look forward to seeing you very soon.
ends