PRIME MINISTER:
Could I start by congratulating the city of London on winning the right to host the Games of 2012. It's a great result and I'm sure that wonderful city will host the Games magnificently. I have sent a personal note of congratulations to my counterpart, Tony Blair, although having in mind some upcoming events, I've said that will be enough English wins for the time being, thank you.
Can I also very warmly welcome today's unemployment figures. They represent a new milestone in this country's employment history. For the first time, 10 million Australians are now in the workforce. This Government has generated 1.7 million new jobs since coming to office. We now have the lowest unemployment rate since 1976 and the point I want to make ladies and gentlemen is that I want this unemployment rate or even a lower unemployment rate in five years time, and the only way we can guarantee that we keep unemployment low is to continue the process of economic reform, and that is directly relevant to the debate on workplace relations.
People will be tempted to say to me, John these figures are magnificent, the economy is strong, unemployment is at near record low, we've passed 10 million jobs, why don't you just sit back and do nothing and let the economy take care of itself? Now that is tempting, and it's the easy way out, but if I did that I know that in five years time we wouldn't have a low unemployment rate, we'd have a weaker economy, we'd have fewer people in the workforce, it's because we have been so successful in the past as a result of past reforms, and we're successful now, that we have to maintain the momentum of economic reform. And I say to all of those people who are critical of the Government's reform agenda; the only way we can buy for ourselves a fresh burst of productivity is to continue the process of reforms.
It's rather like the footballer who says, I'll be alright in next Saturday's match cause I trained for last Saturday's match and we won that one, you've got to do training during the week, again, and again, and again and it's the same as economic reform, you've got to keep at it, you never finally reach the finishing line, it always keeps moving ahead of you.
And so my message on this very significant day, when our workforce is at 10 million for the first time, our unemployment lower than at any time since 1976, if we want to keep it that way we have to take up the responsibility of further reform and that is why the Government is so committed to our workplace relations reform.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister have you brought forward your advertising campaign on the workplace relations reform because of the concern you've seen in the community about them? Was this campaign originally to be launched in September?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we had no particular time for it.
JOURNALIST:
But you said on radio this morning that you're prepared to talk to the ACTU about the package, and in fact you said you wanted to keep all the essentials, so where would you be prepared to move. Would you be prepared to move, for example, on the number of employees in terms of the unfair dismissal?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I am always ready to talk to any section of the community about Government proposals, but nobody should imagine that we haven't given a lot of thought to these proposals. I met Mr Combet some weeks ago at his request, and if he wants to come and see me again I'm happy to do so. I meet union leaders from time to time as I do leaders of the employer groups, but we're not governing for the unions, or governing for the employers. Not everything in this package is liked by the employers, I can assure you of that, but we're governing for 20 million Australians, and we're governing for an unemployment rate lower than what it is now in five years time, and the only way we'll get that lower unemployment rate is to push ahead with change and reforms.
JOURNALIST:
Where would you be prepared to move though?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not indicating I'm going to move anywhere.
JOURNALIST:
So you're not going to move at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not indicating that at all, I'm simply saying that as part of the process of government, I'm always ready to talk to people, but nobody should imagine that we're going to change any of the essentials of this legislation, we are not.
JOURNALIST:
Have you replied to the Schapelle Corby letter?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I hope to be able to do that in the next day or so. I am preparing a detailed reply which will outline all of the things that the Government has done. We will do anything we can to help her, but we cannot generate witnesses that might not exist and we cannot force people and we should not force people to do what they think, that they don't wish to do or say, that would not be right - and we have no intention of doing that. And I do want to take this chance to reject the claims that have been made by some of her lawyers and some spokesmen on behalf that the Government has been indifferent - we are not, but we have to respect the justice system of another country. And if there is evidence around and there is some way that we can facilitate that evidence being sent, either personally by the people who want to give it, or otherwise, then we're happy to do that. But in the end this case must stand or fall on its merits, we cannot generate outcomes and people and evidence and opinions that do not exist.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you have any concerns about the monopoly weapons contract awarded to the brother of the East Timorese Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Brad, I'm seeking some more information on that and until I have it I don't want to comment.
JOURNALIST:
In 1996 you gave a guarantee that under new industrial relations laws no Australian worker would be worse off, why are you going back on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven't gone back on that, what I've said is that I am not going to give a specific guarantee in relation to every individual in the community, nobody can sensibly do that and if you look at precisely what I said in 1996, I didn't say that, either then. But what I can say is that I believe very strongly that the changes we have in mind will result in higher real wages across the community than exists now, and I believe I saw the Queensland Premier acknowledge yesterday that many people would get higher wages as a result of our changes - that's a very interesting contradiction of what he said earlier, and also what Mr Combet and others have been saying.
JOURNALIST:
Will you be presenting some economic evidence [inaudible] the reforms?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is a lot of economic evidence around already. I invite you to have a look at the international economic studies of the IMF for example. I invite you to have a look at the fact that the countries in the industrialised world that have the most highly regulated labour markets are those with the highest levels of unemployment. The countries with the less regulated industrial relations systems have much lower levels of unemployment. I cite Australia, which has a lower level of regulation now than in countries like Germany and France. I mean you compare Germany and France with say Britain, New Zealand, Australia - Britain has a much less regulated industrial relations system than Germany or France, and has an unemployment rate which is half, and that is because Tony Blair, a Labour leader, had the good sense to keep the industrial relations reforms of Margaret Thatcher.
JOURNALIST:
And yet you've got more economists here saying, apparently it's not the case.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you're asking me for economic evidence, I mean you can find one hundred economists and get a hundred different opinions. I am citing international studies which indicate the arguments I am advancing are correct.
JOURNALIST:
Will they be published?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if you look at some of the comments I have made in the Parliament you will find reference to those economic studies.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard with the likely commitment of further troops to Afghanistan, can you say whether they are likely to be SAS frontline troops or engineers?
PRIME MINISTER:
We haven't taken any decision on that Brad, we will discuss it in Cabinet next week, if a decision is taken, I will announce it on behalf of the Government. We are considering it, but as to whether we finally decide to do it, and what form it will take, that is a matter for Cabinet to decide. I noticed incidentally that Mr Beazley is sending very confused signals on this issue. His Defence spokesman Robert McClelland said we should send more forces to Afghanistan, and that was an unconditional call. Mr Beazley is now cutting it back and saying well we should consider something new in Afghanistan, whatever that means but he is also tying it to our pulling down, pulling back our commitment to Iraq, well they are two separate issues, and I want to make it clear that anything that we might decide in relation to Afghanistan will not be at the expense of our commitment to Iraq, our commitment to Iraq will be maintained until our job has been finished.
JOURNALIST:
Speaking of which do you think we can adequately balance our commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Brad, the question as to whether we make a commitment to Afghanistan will be considered next week and we will take into account the advice we receive from the military and I am not going to pre-empt that discussion. We have not taken that decision. We are however going to consider it and coming out of that meeting I will indicate what the Government's disposition is.
JOURNALIST:
Are you surprised by the level, Prime Minister, of the level of community concern about the IR changes?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, you always get, when you are proposing something that's important and something that is for the long term benefit of the country, you always get a negative reaction in the first instance, this happened with the GST. I remember the GST campaign, you must remember it. I remember Mr Beazley saying that we could well have a melt down in Australia on the 1st July 2000, well there wasn't a melt down, I remember going through the Macquarie Shopping Centre, and nobody had melted down, everybody was going about their business, and they, many people expressed surprise that it wasn't as bad as it had been predicted. So you always get this, and the fearmongering wins the early headlines, calmer reflection produces a different reaction, but I fully expect this, and I expect it to go on for some time, but when the reforms are through the Parliament, then people will see that the fearmongering has been wrong and they will realise that they are not going to be worse off. In the long run, I believe they've got a better chance of keeping real wages higher if we make these reforms than if we stay with the current system.
JOURNALIST:
How important do you see the advertising campaign, in getting on the front foot on this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, everything has some significance but in the end people decide these things not on the basis of advertising, they decide these things on the basis of their perception of the facts. You should never overestimate the value of advertising - it's important, it's respectable, it's a proper communication tool, but it's not fundamental. It's the spirit of the argument, the merit of the debate, the justness of the cause in the end decides...
JOURNALIST:
Are you still releasing the family impact statements?
PRIME MINISTER:
We will have a family impact statement prepared in conjunction with the legislation.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, in regards to the Commonwealth Grant Commission, are you willing to sit down with Premier Carr to discuss his proposal to actually abolish the Commission?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have been willing always to sit down with all of the Premiers to talk about a different way of cutting up the pie. Mr Carr has no greater or lesser rights in relation to this than Dr Gallop or Mr Beattie or Mr Bracks, or any of the other Premiers. He doesn't have any privileged position, the Premier of NSW. I deal with the Premiers on a basis of fairness and equality. Our position is very simple, we provide the overall amount, the pie, and if the States want to cut it up differently and reach unanimous agreement on that, then we are very happy to hand them the knife, and they can slice the pie in different proportions. But it should be fully understood that the size of the pie is very large, it's a big pie and it's much bigger as a result of the GST and if they want to cut it up differently, they'll have to agree amongst themselves. I can't help them on that.
JOURNALIST:
Do you believe the current division is best?
PRIME MINISTER:
I know from past experience that no matter what division you have, some States will say it's unfair.
JOURNALIST:
Now just on the issue of [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
No what I was saying was, it didn't amount to a specific commitment in relation to each individual worker.
JOURNALIST:
Isn't it true though that on average, workers are going to have their conditions lessened, overtime will not be paid?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't agree with that at all.
JOURNALIST:
Under the legislation, under the Act it says that the award and also contracts [inaudible] those conditions are much less than what is in the vast majority of the awards. Annual leave is less, they're not required to pay overtime anymore, sick leave is less than most awards. How will that not reduce, what the average worker takes home?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look at the current evidence, the current evidence is that the people on AWAs are better off than people on awards
JOURNALIST:
That's because of the no-disadvantage test that you are abolishing.
PRIME MINISTER:
There will be other factors that bear on what people get, you're asking me whether I believe generally speaking, people will be worse off as a result of these changes and I am saying no I do not believe they will be worse off.
JOURNALIST:
So you're saying that some will be?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I am not saying that, I am just saying that generally people won't be worse off.
JOURNALIST:
What does that mean?
PRIME MINISTER:
It means exactly what I said it means.
JOURNALIST:
How much in taxpayer's funds do you think is justified in terms on the advertising campaign?
PRIME MINISTER:
A reasonable amount.
JOURNALIST:
How much would that be?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can't tell you. A reasonable amount.
JOURNALIST:
Why is it justified?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because people are entitled to know what is in a new policy change that might affect them, they're entitled to know that and then the whole purpose of this line of questioning is to ask me to provide information and that is what I am doing. My critics can't have it both ways, they can't say you must give us more information and then turn around and say, well it's outrageous that you spend taxpayer's money providing that information. The sort of campaign that you'll see, I expect at the weekend, they'll be simple factual newspaper ads that provide information and deal with some of the distortions that have been flung around by the ACTU. Thankyou.
[ends]