LAWS:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John.
LAWS:
Did Mr Beazley make a big mistake when he promised to get rid of AWAs?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes he did because if that were to happen tens of thousands, perhaps several hundred thousand Australians would be worse off because, generally speaking, people get paid more on AWAs than they do under awards or collective agreements.
LAWS:
Why didn't Mr Beazley know that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he knew it but he was being pushed into his position by the unions. And this is a classic example of the reassertion of the bullying role of unions in our community. Nobody argues against the good work of unions and nobody is saying people shouldn't have the right to belong to unions. Nobody's arguing that if people want unions representing them in the workplace they shouldn't be denied the opportunity of that occurring. And there's nothing in our law that stops people having advice and help from unions. But if you are going to have your policy determined by unions, and the reason Mr Beazley's against AWAs is that he wants to reinsert unions into every workplace, even if the individual workers don't want the union. Now we are totally against that and I think most Australians, even many union members, are totally against that.
LAWS:
Well Australia's had a pretty happy time of late, there hasn't been a great deal of interference from unions, there's hasn't been a lot of industrial action has there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have recorded the lowest, in the March quarter 2006, we have recorded the lowest level of industrial disputes, I understand, since those figures began to be recorded and we just don't have strikes to speak of these days. And one of the reasons is that there is greater communication and agreement making between employers and employees according to the circumstances of individual workplaces. Now in many cases that involves the union and the union is constructive, and I'm all for that. I'm not saying that one size fits all, but Mr Beazley is, and the only size he wants to fit anybody up with is the union size.
LAWS:
I'm mean the fact that the Spotlight case is now as famous and the Beaconsfield mine collapse says it all, I mean there's only a handful of problem cases that have come to light and that's the one that people tend to sweat on, doesn't mean much does it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it depends from whose point of view you're looking at in relation to Spotlight. There are 38 formerly people in Mt Druitt in Western Sydney who now have a job as a result of Spotlight and they're $355 a week better off. The lady who's been at the centre of it, Mrs Harris, she of course never signed that AWA, she continues to work under the existing conditions. Now these new laws are designed to produce a more flexible economy and the test of these laws will be how they deliver over time to the generality of the Australian population, whether in general people are better off and whether generally speaking there are more jobs. Now the evidence so far, of course, is far too preliminary to get any kind of line on that, but I do draw attention of course to the fact that when we last changed the industrial relations laws 10 years ago, many people said the world would come to an end. Well that hasn't really happened, quite the reverse. We have the lowest unemployment in 30 years.
LAWS:
The stationery company that you talked about on your figures...
PRIME MINISTER:
Esselte.
LAWS:
Ah yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's the stationery company, yes.
LAWS:
Yes, those people are $27 a week worse off because they didn't sign an AWA?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is right. The information provided by the company refutes the claim made by Stephen Smith for the Labor Party that they would be $65 a week worse off and that was based on a proposition that the company said was false. It was based on a proposition that the company engaged their workforce to work regular hours on a Saturday and the company has stated in a press statement that it's never engaged a person to work their regular hours on a Saturday. It also went on to say that the hourly rate that they were going pay under the AWA was $18.39 versus the collective agreement of $17.30 and on the basis of these calculations that an employee working 38 ordinary hours and three hours overtime, would be actually $27 a week better off under the AWA than they would have been under the collective agreement. Now for whatever combination of pressures, perhaps coming from the union, these workers were resistant to the AWA and I understand that the company has withdrawn the offer of the AWA, so the workers are denied the opportunity, according to our calculations, of being $27 a week better off. Now if that has happened, if the union has bullied them out of taking the AWA, then they've done a great disservice to those men and women because the whole idea of AWAs is to give people who want to embrace a bit more flexibility the opportunity to do so.
LAWS:
Well they are going to be worse off. It's obvious that industrial relations will be one of the critical areas of difference at the next election.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look it will be, to what extent is a bit hard to tell, we're only half way through the term, but it does appear that the Labor Party will make it a big issue. Well if they want to make it a big issue then that's fine by me. I feel very comfortable talking industrial relations, it's something that I've supported reform of all of my political life, well certainly the last 20 years of it, and I believe very passionately that the modern world requires Australia to have a flexible industrial relations system with decent minimum guarantees so people can't be exploited. I don't have the wide-eyed view that every single employer in Australia is an angel, I don't have that view at all. That's why we do have an Office of Workplace Services, that's why we have decent minimum conditions, it's why if people have genuine grievances, they should take them to the Office of Workplace Services, but we cannot go back to the old days when the unions ran everything in the workplace, particularly as fewer than 20 per cent of all Australian workers in the private sector now belong to a union.
LAWS:
Yes, this fella, Faheem Khalid Lodhi, has become the first Australian to be convicted of planning a terrorist act at home, you must be pleased with jury's decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am careful what I say about individual decisions. What I should really do is to welcome the whole process and generally welcome the outcome because the evidence as advised to me, very strongly supported the decision that the jury has made, but as there could be rights of appeal, I don't think it should say more about that particular case. But I can generally say that this is a demonstration that our new anti-terrorism laws are strong, they're effective and they're working.
LAWS:
Yes. And three groups worked very hard to get the result they got too, they worked very well together.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think they did, I think the police and ASIO and both the State and the Federal Police, everybody worked together and that is how it should be and we have very good levels of cooperation between our federal and state law enforcement agencies.
LAWS:
On the issue of childcare. Why won't your Government make the cost of childcare tax deductible?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we make a large part of it tax deductible up to the tune of 30 per cent and from the 1st of July anybody can claim off their tax, or 30 per cent off their tax, the excess cost of childcare over and above what they already get under the childcare payment and what they actually pay. I mean for example, if it cost you say $100 for an amount of childcare and you get 30 per cent from the Government, after the 1st of July you'll be able to claim 30 per cent of the remaining $70. Now if you make it tax deductible, that of course will be of greater advantage to people earning higher incomes and do you pay for that by abolishing the existing benefits? I mean when people say let's make it tax deductible, do they mean that it becomes tax deductible in replacement for all of the existing benefits or do they want it tax deductible over and above the existing benefits. I think if you make it tax deductible over and above the existing benefits, some people who don't have a need for childcare might well say that the Government has gone too far. I mean particularly people who choose to provide their own childcare for their children by dropping out of the workforce and looking after those children at home when they're very young. There is a section of the population that gives up an enormous amount by way of a second income and stays at home while their children are very young and there's a limit to how long they're going to say well this and this additional benefit is acceptable. You've got to balance these things, John.
LAWS:
I understand that but the rebate system seems complicated and a bit of a mess. Why won't you simply allow people to pay for childcare from pre-tax dollars, like a salary sacrifice arrangement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's a bit hard, well that's a slightly different thing. Straight deductibility of childcare expenses, in other words you just claim it off your tax, that's a little different from the point you've just made, that's a variant. And I'd always understood what people basically wanted, if you had $20,000 of childcare or nanny expenses in a year, you'd claim it off your tax. Now you say why won't you? Well I think it's one of those things where Government's are constantly looking at alternatives, but we have the view that the combination of benefits we now have is a more targeted, fair way of dealing with this issue. It's a bit unreasonable for people to say that the rebate system is a bit of a mess. Its benefits are only coming into operations from the 1st of July this year when people put in their tax returns and they will start to get back very significant rebates and I wonder if, by the end of the year when most people will have got back their rebates, whether they think it's quite as messy as some are now saying.
LAWS:
Our forces in Iraq, about to hand over responsibility for security in an area in the south of the country to Iraqi forces. We've been there guarding these Japanese soldiers, doing humanitarian work. Are you going to bring those people home or will they be redeployed?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, they'll be redeployed. They'll go on looking after the Japanese until the Japanese have gone and I expect that to be quite soon and I expect the Japanese Prime Minister to make an announcement about that any moment now. We have already said that after the Japanese have gone, we will redeploy our troops in an area based on the city of Tallil in southern Iraq. Our forces will be part of a joint operation with the British and some others providing back-up security for the Iraqis. That is a sensible next step. The primary security responsibility will be carried by the Iraqis and we will provide a back-up. We'll also do training; continue to do training of the Iraqis. All of this is a very positive development. The aim is to have the Iraqis look after themselves.
LAWS:
Ultimately.
PRIME MINISTER:
Ultimately. And if we pull out too quickly and if others pull out too quickly and they're not well enough developed to look after themselves the whole thing will fall to the ground. It's very difficult, it's still quite dangerous and there is still going to be, in different parts of Iraq, thankfully not so much in the southern area of Iraq where the Australians are, there's still going to be a lot of violence. But we have seen some helpful developments and the most important thing is the Iraqis are getting better every day. There's no shortage of volunteers for the Iraqi Army. They don't have trouble recruiting and they are gradually lifting their skill and competency levels and the worst thing we could do right at the moment would be to say right, the job's finished. Let's get out, and they are not allowed to develop a sufficiently high degree of competency before we pull out, and the whole thing crumbles. And that would be a terrible mistake.
LAWS:
Just quickly, on the asylum seeker legislation. Will it get passed this week? And if not, will you still travel to Indonesia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh my current plans are to go to Indonesia irrespective of anything that might occur in the Australian Parliament.
LAWS:
Do you think...
PRIME MINISTER:
I think all I'll say about the legislation is that there are still discussions going on, and I'm a patient man.
LAWS:
Okay.
PRIME MINISTER:
A very patient man. And in the end what really matters is getting an outcome that reinforces our strong border protection laws. That's my aim. We remain absolutely committed to a strong border protection regime and I think it is perfectly legitimate for this country to say that if people come here in an unauthorised way, they should not expect to be processed in this country.
LAWS:
Some of your backbenchers are still digging their heels in. Are you going to be able to turn them around?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's part of the great tapestry of parliamentary democracy that you have issues and you debate them. And you debate them inside your own ranks. And we've been in office for 10 years and at various stages we've had people who've got a variety of views on Government legislation and it's been my habit to talk things through until we reach an outcome that is consistent with the Government's policy. That's the absolute requirement, but also one that everybody feels comfortable with. And I'll continue to do that on this issue, and I'm not making myself a hostage to a particular timetable. I want to make that very clear.
LAWS:
You never do that these days.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you shouldn't. It's the outcome that matters, not the process.
LAWS:
You did with me once. You said it would be months, not weeks. Turned out to be years.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh dear. You've obviously got the transcript in front of you by the tone of your voice.
LAWS:
We'll leave it. But finally, and probably most importantly, what about the World Cup? Do you think Harry Kewell deserves to be suspended for abusing the referee?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I watched the game and I must have missed that bit. That was after the game was it? Terrific game. No, I don't think, I know I'm not giving a very objective assessment, but I'd like to see him in the team against Croatia because he's a terrific player and I thought the Socceroos were magnificent in the first half. The second half obviously we missed a couple of opportunities but gee they've done well and on form they could well achieve the goal of drawing with or defeating Croatia. I certainly hope they do. They've done very well.
LAWS:
I think they will at least get a draw with Croatia. But Harry got upset, I know you've got to go, Harry got upset because of the penalties. Twenty five penalties against Australia to nine against Brazil. It was a bit lopsided wasn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well on a straight count it was, but I share the reserve of Aloisi and a number of the others who were interviewed on radio this morning saying too much about the referee. I know how sensitive people in that position can be, even from this distance. I just want, I want him in that team on Friday morning.
LAWS:
Well I hope they get that message and pop him in.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah.
LAWS:
Good to talk to you Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thanks John.
LAWS:
Talk to you again soon I hope.
PRIME MINISTER:
Bye.
[ends]