Download PDFTHE HON KEVIN ANDREWS MP
MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS MINISTER ASSISTING THE PRIME MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
Transcript
Doorstop Interview
4 Treasury Place Melbourne
Andrews:
Ladies and gentleman, what we’ve seen in the last few days is Kim Beazley admitting that Australian Workplace Agreements are a valuable part of the system in Australia, and that he doesn’t want to abolish them because they are popular and they’re electorally popular. What he would do instead is strangle them by stealth and this just shows the hypocrisy of the Labor party’s view about our industrial relations changes. Secondly we have a whole series of Labor and union leaders on record over the years, going back to Bob Carr over a decade ago, saying that it was absurd to have duplicated systema of industrial relations in Australia, that we should have one national system. And yet when they’ve got the chance to bring about a national system we have this posturing from the states saying that they don’t want it. Again this shows that these actions are just political posturing and hypocritical in the extreme.
Journalist:
The industrial relations ministers today have produced a giant undertaking and a felt tip pen which they say you should sign that no Australian worker would be worse off under your IR changes. Will you sign it?
Andrews:
What I can say and it’s what the Prime Minister’s been saying and that is under our proposed reforms the take home pay and the living standards of Australians will not be reduced. What I can guarantee to Australians is that if we do not make these sensible reforms then we are placing in danger and at risk the living standards, the take home pay and indeed the family circumstances therefore of Australians in the future. That’s the guarantee we can give: if you don’t so these things then we are placing at risk the very standard of living of Australians in future.
Journalist:
Will you give the states and territories say their written guarantee that they want?
Andrews:
Well the guarantee I’m giving to them and the guarantee that I’m giving to the Australian people is that if we don’t make some sensible changes then we will not be able to sustain our standard of living into the future. Can I remind you that this sort of criticism was the criticism which the states and the territories made in 1996. Since then, against everything that they predicted, we’ve seen an increase in real wages in Australia of over 14 per cent. We’ve seen 1.6 million extra jobs created. That’s what we’ve achieved through sensible reform. That’s what we have to continue to achieve.
Journalist:
Do you accept that in some instances wages may be driven down by these reforms?
Andrews:
What we’ve said is this is not about slashing the wages and the take home pay of Australians. This is about making some further progressive sensible reform that will ensure that the prosperity that Australians are enjoying now can be sustained into the future.
Journalist:
But the reality is that it does open the door for that to happen.
Andrews:
This is not about changing wages in the sense of driving them down. It’s not about taking away people’s take home pay. It’s about making sensible reform which we assert is in necessary if we’re going to actually continue to grow in this country. It’s about the economic growth of Australia. If we don’t sustain our economic growth then the wages and indeed the jobs of Australians cannot be assured.
Journalist:
Mr Andrews, The Age has said this morning that taxpayers are going to be slugged a hundred million dollars for the government to seel these reforms. Is this figure right?
Andrews:
Look I wouldn’t believe everything that you read in The Age or any other newspaper on this for example.
Journalist:
Don’t you think that taxpayers deserve and have the right to know what they’re going to be spending and putting towards
this, the industrial reform changes?
Andrews:
As with past instances, we believe there is a proper role to explain these changes to the Australian people. That’s what we will continue to do so. Government’s of all political persuasions have done this in the past and we will do it in this instance.
Journalist:
Will you be spending 100 million dollars to explain it?
Andrews:
Look I, I don’t know what the figures are in terms of what we’re going to spaned,. This is something which we’ve only just started. But we will explain adequately and fully to the Australian people what the changes are and the reason why we need to do that is to explain to Australians that these reforms are necessary if we want to sustain our living standards into the future.
Journalist:
Hundred million a ball park figure or…
Andrews:
Look I’m not going to comment on the, on the figure. I don’t know where the figure was plucked from. It’s a figure that was just plucked from somewhere.
Journalist:
The states say they’re prepared to go to the High Court if you try and impose a unitary system on them. Are you confident you’d win a challenge if there was one?
Andrews:
Look our advice is very clear, that on constitutional grounds we can rely upon the corporations power in the constitution. Can I remind you that this power was first relied upon by the Keating government back in 1993 with their industrial reform act. It was then relied upon by us in the Workplace Relations Act in 1996. This is not the first time and it’s not a novel reliance upon the corporations power in Australia. But we believe that people understand that it is an absurdity and inefficiency to have so many competing system of workplace relations in Australia. The time has come, as Labor leaders and union officials have acknowledged in the past, for a national system and we intend to bring it about.
Journalist:
Minister what potential do you think that this possible High Court action might have for stalling the industrial reform
changes?
Andrews:
Well we’ll have the legislation into the parliament this year and we hope that it’ll be though the parliament this year. One the legislation is passed, well then we intend to bring the legislation into operation and we will do that regardless of any challenge in the High Court.
Journalist:
When do you expect it to be in full operation?
Andrews:
Some time in the first quarter of next year.
Journalist:
Is there any scope for negotiation at all in the package with the states, given that you can’t push through your package for all Australian workers?
Andrews:
Well the offer is on the table for the States to refer their powers. They have rejected that offer but the offer’s still on the table.
Journalist:
They’re still asking for you to negotiate with them.
Andrews:
They’re asking for me to negotiate on the basis that they don’t refer their powers. I mean, let’s, let’s be sensible about this. If they want to refer their powers, then they can come and talk to us about it. That offer is standing.
Journalist:
They’re saying they don’t know the detail
Andrews:
The offer is standing.
Journalist:
(inaudible) No, no.
Andrews:
They can come and refer their powers. The state of Victoria has referred their powers, it’s operating quite well in Victoria. The other states should follow suit, it’s what, you know, Mr Carr said. We’ve got on record Stephen Smith from the Labor party supporting the idea of a national system. Bill Shorten from the AWU has supported a national system. We all know that the time for a national system has come, that’s it’s appropriate and many people have supported it, let’s just get on and do it.
Journalist:
Is it appropriate because the Government has a double majority in both houses?
Andrews:
Well we’re doing it because we have an opportunity to meet the challenges that Australia will face over the coming decade. Standing still is not an option for Australia. If we simply stand still, we go back in relative terms to other countries that we must compete against. Now what a responsible government has to do is look to the future, look to the future challenges facing Australia and put in place some further sensible reforms so that we can set Australia up for another decade of growth.
Journalist:
If the states don’t refer their powers to you are you still free to proceed?
Andrews:
Yes we are. We’re using the corporations power in the constitution.
Journalist:
What sort of complexity will that introduce into the mix if the state’s don’t refer their powers to you?
Andrews:
Well, this will enable us to establish a system which will cover something like three quarters, if not more, of employees in Australia, who are employed by corporations. That’s not the perfect outcome, the perfect outcome would be a referral of powers. But we’re not going to stand back and fail to achieve what we can achieve simply because we have this bloody-minded attitude from the states, who say against what they know to be true, that for political purposes, we’re not going to cooperate. I mean this is just absurd.
Journalist:
What will be the maximum working week, standard working week before overtime kicks in, and what the state of play in
terms of lunch breaks. I mean the Prime Minister sais something about that on radio recently.
Andrews:
Yep. Can I, can I say it’s fanciful to suggest that somehow these changes are going to lead to people not getting lunch breaks, or the ordinary sorts of things that occur in the workplace at the present time. There are, if for no other reasons, occupational health and safety reasons why you have hours of work and lunch breaks and things like that. And the suggestion that’s been made that somehow this won’t be a feature of the system in the future is entirely fanciful.
Journalist:
What about the over time and shift allowances?
Andrews:
Well all these details will be set out in the legislation when we bring it into the parliament. All these things will be in the detail, they’ll all be in the legislation when we come into parliament and can be seen. And all of these questions about detail will then be explained,
Journalist:
Take home pay won’t be effected though, you won’t be reducing the overtime rate?
Andrews:
Well we’ve already said there will be a 38 hour, you know, ordinary hours of a week. That will be the ordinary hours of the week. That reflects fairly much the standard which applies at the present time in most awards and agreements. This is another example of attempts to make mischief about a whole lot of detail. The detail will be there. There will be some months of debate in the parliament where people can adequately look at this. There will be a Senate committee which will examine it, so there will be plenty of time for people to see the detail.
Journalist:
Are you hopeful that you’ll come to any resolution today? You seem to both have fairly entrenched positions.
Andrews:
Well as I said, our offer’s on the table, we would like the states to refer their powers, that offer is on the table and it will remain a standing offer to the states.
-ends-
For further information contact:
Ian Hanke 0409 715 861
5/08/2005