Paul Howes National Press Club Address
17 February 2010
Speech by AWU National Secretary Paul Howes to the National Press Club on 17 February 2010
KEN RANDALL: Ladies and gentlemen welcome to the National Press Club and today's National Australia Bank address.
It's a great pleasure and it's very timely this week to welcome back the national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union - Paul Howes.
There's no doubt that industrial relations issues have got firmly back on the political agenda this week for this election year. It's just over two years ago that Paul Howes first made an appearance here. He was then 26 and most people were a bit stunned at the fact that somebody of that age had become national secretary of the AWU, which is Australia's oldest and most diverse union. He's now in his second term, so a lot of other things have happened since then and he'll be talking about some of them today, including issues of foreign investment and particularly job security on the basis of some research which has been commissioned by the union.
Please welcome back Paul Howes.
PAUL HOWES: Thank you Ken. It's great to be back at the club, in the loop, after two years since I first spoke here. And I've come to you direct from a meeting of ACTU leaders in regional Victoria, where we developed some good ideas for our campaign in 2010 and I also developed a cold, so you'll have to forgive me for that.
Two years ago I was new in the job. Like most opinion makers here I could not have predicted what was coming for us economically just a few months later. Nor what you and others would be saying about it.
Commentators globally were talking about the end of rogue capitalism, the end of corporate rorts, the end of banking and finance as we knew it, and the beginning of a new, reregulated age of Keynesian commonsense and the values of Main Street returning and the values of Wall Street receding.
But now, 15 or 16 months later, the same commentators are much, much happier. They see an improved and hopeful, even familiar, situation with yesterday's villains calmly, capably steering us back to the old levels of growth, productivity,
employment, house prices and rich rewards once more for CEOs without much structural change in the way things were and the way things are.
Unemployment is down once more, as low as 5.3 per cent. Asian demand is up, economic recovery here in Australia on the way, things are already booming. Commodity prices are going up for raw ingredients like coal, iron-ore and bauxite and the whole future pattern will be, the whole future road will be, growth, blip, growth from 2008 to 2010.
Happy ever after.
Iron-ore spot price is up 15 per cent - 50 per cent since October. Most experts are now forecasting gains of 30 per cent to 40 per cent, sometimes 50 per cent, in contract prices. China is now a net importer of coal, since local mining issues became - local mining became restricted by safety issues,safety issues at last, contract issues, pollutions, cost issues. And the pace of recovery is speeding up in the region.
Happy endings. Well done everyone.
But before we get too excited by the good days and the better days ahead, and the journey that will lead us to the broad sunlit uplands of the always lucky economy in this always lucky country, what Norman Lindsay called " The land where the beer bottle grows," it's important that we unpack, we deconstruct, we analyse some part at least of the story so far and what the story lately has come to mean.
I would therefore today like to review some of the experience of the global financial crisis and how the AWU responded, and what we think we should be up to as a country and an economy and a society to avoid a repetition of the tragedy and the farce of 2008 and 2009 and to see with clear unclouded eye - unideological eyes, the shape of days ahead.
This time last year we were in the middle of a great financial tornado unleashed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the debts that couldn't be paid on the loans that shouldn't have been made on houses now theoretically worthless in America, a
currency theoretically worthless in Iceland, and banks now crumbling in London and financial institutions still teetering across the world.
Export orders were down by 50 per cent and 60 per cent in the case of steel and aluminium. For the first time in the history of this nation we could not sell our steel to anyone at any price anywhere in the world. Local demand was crashing and a sharp fall in GDP went negative in the December quarter of 2008.
As the events subsequently showed the last quarter of 2008 was the lowest point in the slowdown of the domestic economy, but it could have much worse. It was the greatest challenge facing my union in a generation.
But the Government moved quickly and it should be commended for moving so quickly to stimulate domestic economic activity before the slowdown swamped our shores, like the slow-moving tsunami that it was. Targeted fiscal policy measures, big cuts in interest rates flowed in the end to borrowers and consumers. Buying and selling continued and jobs were sustained because the money was there.
The Australian public rightly applauded this and sighed with relief because the Government offered hope. There was a strong determined hand on the tiller and we rode out the storm. This was complemented in its effect by unions and the workforce and our constructive engagement with employers in agreeing to reduce work hours to save jobs.
And although some jobs were lost the number was always less than forecast but the upshot, the shakedown, the bottom line was very hard for some. Seventy-seven thousand jobs went in manufacturing and the knock-on effect of that will be felt for years and decades ahead as the factories that were shut will never be reopened again.
Today however, it is true that Australia is better placed some most countries to benefit from renewed consumer confidence and China's need for what we can dig out and sell to them.
Economic activity continues, even though monetary stimulus of the months of the crisis is slowly being withdrawn. Borrowing for housing has rebounded and no longer wholly dependent on first home buyers. Business is planning more ventures and spending more money. There's a high current account deficit. But this is because of high and rising investment, not low and declining saving.
And forecasts for economic growth have been revised up, substantially up, since the middle of 2009.
But higher interest rates and the foreign exchange it is attracting are turbo charging the Australian dollar, which is rising again as it was in 2007 and may soon reach parity with the US greenback. The higher interest rates that we are now enjoying or suffering may choke recovery, particularly in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism and education, and are raising concerns - rightful concerns - about the re-emergence of a two-track economy.
At the same time Australia's productivity performance has declined in the past decade and in most sectors. As Wayne Swan said in the Intergenerational Report: our performance in this sector will have to improve if we are to cope with an ageing population and fewer younger people proportionately in paid work.
The Government wants, and rightly wants, our productivity levels - our productivity growth up from 1.4 per cent to 2 per cent over the next four decades. Doing so by 2050 when I am 68 and most of you are considerably older, and some will be six foot under, will make every Australian $16,000 better off in today's value each year.
There are things to note. The return of the resources boom and the return very soon of some of the stresses of the years before the meltdown: skill shortages and infrastructure snarls and bottlenecks, for instance, will be back with a vengeance.
Faster population growth will add to the strain, I think, of the returned resources boom. Increased congestion, demands on infrastructure, rising house prices, the plague of our time, the plague of my generation, will be - soon need to be addressed and sorted out. Doing this well, in particular in civil works and public transport, will be key union goals in 2010, building on what we've achieved in 2009.
The historic alliance forged between by union and our dreaded old enemy, the AMWU, in 2009 helped address the major downturn in demand for manufacturing exports by insisting on greater content in local procurement opportunities. This was not the protectionist stance that some were calling it. It was a proactive policy which did not contradict, did not undermine my own well known and my own well entrenched pro-free trade position.
We were assisted greatly here by the Government and by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Kim Carr, and his support for our industries and my members is publicly acknowledged today.
Addressing major procurement opportunities, maximising local content and procurement opportunities in infrastructure provision are key goals that we'll continue to pursue into the future.
Looking ahead, we do not see as our biggest problem sovereign risk default nor the worldwide downturn that seemed for a while to be coming after us here too in Australia.
It won't occur here, or so it seems, touch wood but other countries, other regions may not be as lucky as money and investors go where they think the true safe havens are, the comfort zones, the oasis of tranquillity, the breeding grounds of quiet prosperity.
Their sad story will be like America's, more about debt servicing than debt repayment or even debt reduction. The big challenge will be to have policy settings that ensure an entrenched recovery and therefore promote positive growth rather than choking it off at its hour of birth.
We need to see that debt servicing is sustainable in the longer term. The benefits flowing from investment, from jobs, new housing, new families, new infrastructure, new boom towns, new mining ventures, are generating momentum in the Australian economy and thus causing the sort of problems we experienced before the present era.
Skill shortages and a call for greater skilled migration, the need for more local processing rather than processing offshore and a booming exchange rate putting pressure on the competitiveness of local manufacturing and the re-emergence once more of the two track economy.
But just as the for lease signs start coming down in our mining towns and the stock market starts heading up because of the new mining boom we should take stock of the experiences of the global financial crisis and with the Government's help, hard wire into our policy responses this time around and I'll explain what we mean.
Rather than simply going for broke because our resources and our mines are again in demand let's agree on a clear strategy for the future development and our consequent future prosperity which smooths out some of the boom bust pressures and maximises returns in the years, days and decades ahead.
This should include a clear strategy on the role and nature of foreign investment, including how we treat sovereign wealth funds and how we treat the importance of jobs which add greater value locally and the role and type of skilled migration we want to see. And how we maximise migration without hurting Australian workers who are bringing home the bacon for the rest of us in this country.
Let me emphasise that we are not opposed to migrants coming here or to guest workers coming here, any more than we would be opposed to Haitian refugees coming here seeking work as the post war migrants did who made up the bulk of my union's membership in the 1950s and 1960s but we need a fair and transparent program based on our fair go traditions.
A fair go for Australian workers and a fair go for foreign workers as well. We do not need to see again and pray God we never see again, the ugly arrangements of the Howard years, so close to the years of blackbirding a century past, of guest workers kept in filthy chook houses and paid wages as if they were the slaves from the nineteenth century.
We do not need to hear the stories again of those years, the rumours of those years, the stories that my union officials heard first hand of criminal harassment, embezzlement of salaries and of casual rape. I believe we need fewer criminals in our economy as a rule and no criminals in this part of the economy at all.
The AWU and the Government are hand in glove on this but a lot of rogue, agrarian capitalists have gone against us. Barnaby's friends are refusing to use the guest worker program and are getting shady local fellows to press-gang workers into cheap service as the British Navy in the eighteenth century did, a practice that in today's Australia should have stopped.
A few generations back before most people in this room were born our employers were companies based on a single town. Then employers started to spread their wings and prospered and invested and became state-wide companies and our union had to learn to deal with that.
Later, something we've been used to for years now, they became national companies and our union to survive had to organise nationally. Now my generation has to get used to the idea of dealing with global employers and finding ways of organising globally.
Rupert Murdoch is probably the best illustration in one long lifetime of the way that employers grow. From an Adelaide employer he became the dominant national employer and today he is almost the dominant global employer in media, movies, newspapers, books and broadcast televisions. That kind of thing is happening too in resources, manufacturing, construction and even the services sector, so we better get used to it.
And, yes, sometimes the employer will be head office in China and we better get used to that too and the AWU supports foreign investment in the Australian economy. Yes, we do but not on their terms.
We think that sovereign wealth funds should be looked at carefully because of the involvement of other governments in our economy and other nations and other nations' national interests versus what we need to see as our best interests and who benefits most in the long term, us or them.
The value of this market is huge. China for example is estimated to have more than US$2 trillion in reserve which is available for foreign investment. Some of that could be here. Some of that should be here but it has to be watched. The Foreign Investment Review Board must ensure that our national interest is fully taken into account when we look at applications for sovereign funds invested in Australia's key strategic resources. In particular in commodity assets where jobs are at stake and jobs are at risk as they always are of going offshore after the money goes offshore the way that jobs do.
Therefore instead of opposing investment by sovereign funds outright or dealing ad hoc with takeover bids as they occur now and then, the AWU wants sovereign wealth funds to link their potential investment in key assets to a sovereign capital training scheme and a related Australian endowment fund.
The Australian endowment fund would allow the Australian Government to recognise and benefit from the investment under the scheme and build infrastructure, skills and industry policy around these investments and savings without recourse to a higher resources rent tax.
It will assist the Government to deal with the moral hazard of these investments.
This is because they are essentially beyond the control of the market place. It is difficult to know and impossible to control the behaviour of governments, other governments, foreign governments, regarding such investments.
But it does not mean that these investments should be banned and our investments therefore abroad are put at risk of being banned as well in reprisal by more vengeful governments, more protectionist governments, more selfish governments than our own benevolent Government.
But as in the insurance industry and elsewhere where there is imperfect information, arrangements need to reflect the potential, rather than the actual risk of future behaviour.
In insurance it is usually the size of premiums that go up well beyond the reasonable expectation of actual risk but the actual level of risk is often unknown, that's life.
For sovereign investments bi-lateral negotiations would and perhaps as a part of firm deliberations settle the scale and scope of participation in the sovereign capital training scheme and related investment in the Australian endowment fund, commensurate with the strategic nature of the investment, joint venture partnerships and local content.
For example, investment in raw and bulk commodities such as our iron ore, coal, bauxite and natural gas resource projects, with little local processing would command a higher value under the scheme than say investing in an established manufacturing business or commencing one in processing these raw materials into manufactured products.
In this way we would be behaving responsibly, encouraging investment in valuating activities in Australia, in participation with our local partners and local communities. The lower the investment opportunity for domestic value are added under the scheme, the higher the level of contributions to the Australian endowment fund.
Conversely the greater level of processing and manufacture undertaken locally under the scheme with the assistance of sovereign capital investment, the lower the required contribution to the Australian endowment fund. The proceeds from the endowment fund would not flow back to the Government as general revenue but be re-invested in the productive capacity of the national economy.
For example, in infrastructure investment skills training overseen by a cabinet committee to this end. Other countries may respond in turn with their own schemes which may not be such a bad thing.
No bad thing either for the future regulation of the global sovereign wealth fund industry or the investments which they ultimately undertake.
We need to have a debate on the merits of establishing a sovereign capital training scheme and an Australian endowment fund and we should have that now in order to address the demand from sovereign wealth funds aiming to invest in Australia's strategic assets.
The Global Financial Crisis was a major exercise in damage control. By and large, Australian industry and Australian workers cooperated in retaining rather than shredding jobs often at the expense of reduced shifts and hours and switching from full time to part time work.
However, that effort was worthwhile in ensuring that the unemployment rate did not escalate, not this time and unlike recoveries from previous recessions, the employment rate across the world seems to be and would seem to already be responding strongly.
In these circumstances, we have a useful interval, a small period of reflection to prepare for the future and to look for instance at the treatment of worker's entitlements and the risk of loss in the event of future insolvency. Currently, workers entitlements still remain unsecured in the list of creditors. As usual, workers are at the end of the queue.
The Corporations Act is behind the times and in its attitude, it pre-dates the Magna Carte and there appears no logical reason why employees should not precede banks and other financial lenders in the queue for repayment since they were the makers of the wealth in the first place, the wealth that was enjoyed for so long. They built it. They dug it out. They did the whole work while the others merely shuffled paper.
There are sound economic and productivity related reasons to have employees as secured creditors. It is something that our union has believed should always have been there in the first place. Security of entitlements will be an ongoing area of policy focus for the AWU of this year. It will be one of our major priorities as we enter a number of enterprise bargaining negotiations with ferocity and a certain level of hope.
But the big news that I propose to announce today is the findings of the latest AWU Auspoll job satisfaction index. We released the first job satisfaction index report this time last year. Now we have gone back to it and it will come out henceforth at the start of every parliamentary year so we can track changes in attitudes to jobs and job security by Australia's working people across the years.
The key point to note is that while today there is an increased confidence in our economy, this optimism has not been yet translated into personal experience.
As the effect of the government stimulus package has washed through Australia, there has been a sharp drop amongst working people concerned that the economy will continue to deteriorate. But at a personal level, working people continue to worry about their own personal jobs.
Our poll shows that working people are in fact more likely to report difficulties at work in the last six months such as increased workload or losing their job than they did this time last year. The breakup of this data should be no great surprise. Those who earn more are less concerned about losing their job than those who earn less.
Older workers as a rule are actually reporting fewer difficulties in the workplace than younger workers. This of course flips over when we look at future expectations - 51 per cent of 18 to 29 year olds are confident they can find a similar job with equivalent pay and benefits. Only 35 percent of workers aged over 50 are as confident. But regional workers curiously are more optimistic in their expectations; 32 per cent of them feared they might lose their jobs versus 38 per cent of metropolitan workers.
More headlines of course, more headlines and rumours attended the sacking of metropolitan workers, auto workers for instance and this might account for it.
Forty-nine per cent of workers say that unions are the group most likely to act in their interest. Correct. These results are consistent with last year's figures.
Attitudes to employers remain cool. Correct. 67 per cent say employers are too concerned with profits. Who would have thunk that? Only 28 per cent have actually been consulted about their employer about their worker's future job security. Our poll shows us that the government's handling of the global financial crisis is seen as truly positive.
The most popular government policies are funding for infrastructure projects, 81 per cent support and the Australia-made campaign, 78 per cent support.
A clear majority, 58 per cent and this is no surprise believe that workers need more protection of their pay and conditions. Fifty per cent of workers believe that the Labor Party shares this view. By contrast, 57 per cent believe that the Liberal Party supports less security, more exploitation and cruelty in the work place.
They are of course are right and I suspect that that number would have increased after this week's shenanigans.
This means at a time when workers can still report some concern about job security, we can expect them to warm in an election period to the Labor Party, to our Labor Party. That shows that they share their views rather than the WorkChoices mark 2 version of the Liberal Party. After all, our poll shows that working people, amongst working people, Kevin Rudd far outclasses Tony Abbott by a whopping 44 per cent to 15 per cent as the one who would do a better job of securing and enhancing better working conditions.
So what do I take away from this important poll?
That the Australian Worker's Union along with every other union must continue to go out and defend the jobs of every working person in this country. That's what Australian working families expect of us and trust us to do well. Unions like ours have always been the voice and protector of every working family suffering the impact of, or the threat of losing their jobs and losing their homes.
Our job is to stand up, stand strong together for the working community and that's why the AWU will continue to argue that the government's stimulus program has been a winner for working people but we are not completely out of the woods yet.
This government faced a terrible situation almost from the day it was elected because the crisis hit just after the election.
The government acted smartly and saved the Australian economy from total collapse. We've now come through the very dangerous times but the danger has not entirely abated. A disciplined union movement burnt and scarred and made wise by the Howard years is ready to act in this important election year because we know, we know that at night Tony Abbott dreams of returning to the WorkChoices era.
Tony Abbott and his coalition partners returned to parliament in the last couple of weeks and immediately demanded an end to the government's stimulus package in addition to a poorly cloaked campaign to bring back WorkChoices but with a different name.
He unleashed his storm trooper Erika Betz once again whipping up lies and fears and innuendo to create a false picture suggesting widespread industrial unrest.
Reading Liberal Party press releases, you could be forgiven for thinking that the economy is about to grind to a halt due to the revolutionary masses of unionists about to storm the winter palace. The reality of course is very different.
Today's Australian union movement has demonstrated, demonstrated that during this economic crisis we can work together. We can have unprecedented levels of cooperation thinking about how best to maximise job opportunities to keep our members, to keep Australian workers in work.
We have worked hard to guarantee the job security of working people in this country. Unions in 2010 are working now in ways never seen before. Unions in 2010 are growing and most importantly, unions in 2010 are working to do as we have always done, to advance Australia. To build a stronger, more prosperous, more equal society which is in the benefit of all Australians
.
So if we can cut through the spin, stay disciplined as a labour movement, a fellowship of decent purpose, I believe that we will come through 2010 and in to 2011 with a stronger Australia able to build a better, a stronger economy, create more jobs and provide the type of job security working people look to unions and union leadership and union solidarity and labour governments to deliver. Thank you.
KEN RANDALL: Thank you very much Paul Howes. We have our usual period of questions from our media members today. Starting with Stephanie Balogh.
QUESTION: Mr Howes, hi, Stephanie Balogh from the Courier Mail. On the issue of job satisfaction, unions helped Kevin Rudd into the lodge in 2007, are you satisfied that he's making progress and meeting all his election promises or would you mark his report card; must do better?
PAUL HOWES: Thank you Stephanie. Well Kevin Rudd went to the election and said he was going to restore fairness to Australian work places. In July last year, when the Fair Work Act was implemented, we had fairness restored to Australian work places for the first time since 1996. Now you have the odd criticism here or there of the Fair Work Act. I'm a critic from time to time. But the reality is it's truly remarkable that with a hostile senate, a hostile senate largely controlled by the Liberal Party and nut bags like Steve Fielding, that we managed to get a sensible piece of legislation passed that restored balance, stored equality - restored equality and restored dignity to the Australian work places. Ensured that 2.3 million workers, who lost unfair dismissal protection, got it back. Now what do we hear yesterday? Those 2.3 million workers, a quarter of the Australian work force, one in four people who go to work every day, are going to lose their unfair dismissal protections under an Abbott/Barnaby Joyce government. And that truly scares me because I know we've got a long way to go. There are issues I'm not happy about and there are issues the government can do better. But on the whole, are my members better off today than they were four years ago? Without a doubt, without a doubt. And anyone who tells you different, is lying.
KEN RANDALL: Thank you. The next question is from Danielle Cronin.
QUESTION: Danielle Cronin from the Canberra Times Mr Howes. Overnight, US President Barack Obama announced the guarantee for the first nuclear power plant built in the US for 30 years. Is it time that Australia embraced nuclear energy and do we risk becoming a economic back water if we don't move down that route? Why or why not?
PAUL HOWES: Well that's a positive announcement in the US and it's a positive for the three and a half thousand workers, construction workers in the US who'll get jobs out of that construction program. Look, we have a Prime Minister who is firmly opposed to the deployment of nuclear power in Australia. We have a leader of the Liberal Party who's made it clear that they will not be taking a nuclear power stance to the election. We have the third party; the Greens, who are very clearly opposed to nuclear power. So I don't think that this is going to be an issue in the election. My personal views are that it is - makes sense to investigate all the options and opportunities that are available to us in an energy constrained, low-carbon future. Is nuclear the answer? Maybe. But maybe not, as well. We have so much we can do with natural gas which has 60 per cent less emissions than coal fired power station. The development of carbon capture and storage is so crucial to the future of my members in the steel and aluminium industries. And that's why we applauded the government's announcement of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. Other countries around the world will look at different options. The good news is with the recommencement of a nuclear power program in the United Sates is that we have another market, another export potential for our uranium reserves. Uranium reserves which are progressing quite well in Western Australia and South Australia. Providing the jobs that were lost out of the manufacturing sector in South Australia and that is a positive thing. But in terms of the debate here, I really can't see it happening.
KEN RANDALL: Thank you. The next question is from Amanda Hart.
QUESTION: Amanda Hart from Ten News. I - obviously, as you said, with the Labor Government not, predictably not going to establish a nuclear industry here, do you think it's political cowardice?
PAUL HOWES: Well I just think it's a political reality. You know, as I said, there is no party going to this next election with a platform of looking at nuclear power. I have, in the past, argued in favour of a debate around nuclear power and I think that a lot of people would like to have that debate. And we will have that debate in the future. We had that debate in 2007. And in that debate, the Australian electorate spoke very loudly and clearly about their own personal views on nuclear power. But do I see energy security and nuclear power as the most important issue affecting my members or the Australian electorate at the moment? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. What I see for my members is that for the first time in two years, we are facing the spectre of industrial relations becoming another political play thing of the coalition. That is what I'm focussed on this year. That is what all Australian unions are focussed on this year. Because I thought coming out of 2007, IR was off the table. That no-one would be stupid enough in the coalition to have another crack to bring back their wet dream. But who would have predicted Tony Abbott would become the leader? I mean you can't blame me for not, for not - thinking that the coalition was smarter than electing someone like Tony as the leader of the Liberal Party. And lo and behold, we're back here again. Back here again dusting off the boxes, finding the your rights at work stickers. Having to defend which - a notion which I believe is as Australian as the fair go. The notion of a protection from being unfairly dismissed at work. The notion that you have a safety net. A minimum standards conditions that employers and governments cannot rip away at. And that is the issue that's focussed my attention this year because I tell you what, there's a couple of hundred votes in this election. And it only takes a couple of hundred people to be enamoured with Tony's budgie smugglers or Barnaby Joyce's lack of understanding of economics to change this election. To change the outcome. And for the union movement and for working people to lose this election, will actually be an endorsement. An endorsement of work choices and an endorsement of an unregulated labour competitive market like we have in the United Sates and other economies.
KEN RANDALL: Steven Scott.
QUESTION: Steven Scott from the Financial Review, Paul. You mentioned you'd just come from the ACTU's campaign planning meeting. I was wondering whether you think there are any other areas other than IR that the ACTU should be campaigning on? Or is the coalition's new-found policy embrace of IR going to swamp over other policy areas?
PAUL HOWES: Well no union, no peak council, no individual union, no union leader is going to allow working people in this country to be placed in the situation which they were in in 2004. Unlike the 2004 election is that for once we'll have an honest Liberal party policy. Because Tony wasn't disciplined enough at his first press conference he let it slip, that whilst he doesn't like the name WorkChoices, he loves the policy and he's bringing it back. Now he's trying to wind back the clock at the moment, I mean I heard him, was it yesterday saying WorkChoices is dead - dead and buried. I kind of thought well, if I went out and bought a cat and called it Rex and said it was a dog, it's still a cat. And WorkChoices you can call it whatever you want, you can call his Liberal party policy about unfair dismissals, about award safety and it's about protection, whatever you want, it's still WorkChoices. And that is crucial for us, I mean at the end of the day, it is our jobs, as trades unions, to ensure that our members can go to work and have fundamental rights protected - fundamental rights protected. Freedom from unfair dismissal, knowledge that your safety net is not going to be ripped away and what did we hear yesterday, 2.3 million workers unfair dismissals, gone, could be sacked on a whim. We had that debate in 2007 and the Australian people backed Labor and backed the union campaign and of course unions are on a campaign with the same issues. We have always talked about other issues - we've always talked about other issues, safety, we've always spoken about superannuation, we have always spoken about the need for more family friendly workplaces and we will always continue to do that and we are clever enough that we can do more than two things at once. But, at this election, my focus and the union movements focus will be on ensuring that the Australian people aren't duped into a return of WorkChoices with a different name.
KEN RANDALL: A question from Sid Maher.
QUESTION: Sid Maher from The Australian. Mr Howes, last September you expressed some concern about workers being worse off as a result of award simplifications and you also accused the government of giving too much weight to the arguments of the employer groups. Given the recent examples we've seen of workers being worse off, is that still your view, and is, as Mr Abbott says, that a broken promise from the Rudd Government?
PAUL HOWES: Well Sid, if you remember correctly what I said, I was concerned about the government giving too much credence to some employer associations. There are some sensible employer associations that will try and do the right thing for their business and for their workers, then you have the trots, the Australian Mines and Metals Association, the Minerals Council, the fringe elements who are out there trying to wind back the clock not to the full WorkChoices but back to a - before the harvester decision, you know, nuts, mental. In terms of award modernisation this has been an incredibly time consuming and difficult process, why, because it is a difficult thing to do, to create a national award safety net, to create a national award system. Now when Joe Hockey and John Howard started the award modernisation process, they also admitted that it was going to be a complicated system. And I notice, I haven't read anywhere in any paper anyone saying that this is actually a Joe Hockey initiative with Kevin Andrews. But it has taken a long period of time and unlike -unlike Labor and unlike Julia Gillard, the coalition when they started this process did not provide any guarantees for working people. Now there have been some mistakes and there have been some problems with this process. But workers who are left worse off because of the award modernization process can make applications for take home pay orders. There are solutions to these problems. There is a tribunal for once which has the power to make decision to rectify these problems. Is it frustrating, yes. Is it time consuming, yes. Is it the right thing to do for the Australian economy, absolutely. Is it the right thing to do for Australian workers, without a doubt. Because for the first time we will have an uncomplicated system which gives employers certainty about what they are paying across the board, across the country and gives workers the guarantee they ain't being ripped off.
KEN RANDALL: The next question is from Karl Elsener.
QUESTION: Karl Elsener Australia Associated Press Mr Howes. Chevrons announced it will import 25,000 tonnes of steel for the Gorgon gas project. That's going to cost Australian jobs no doubt, 2000 I think has been - what's been suggested. Is this a policy failing on the part of the Rudd Government and perhaps an example of what you're talking about today in terms of investment rules? Secondly, the ramp up in rhetoric in criticism of Tony Abbott in recent weeks is that perhaps because you fear Tony Abbott's chances at the next election or do you consider him more to be the Liberal version of a Mark Latham.
PAUL HOWES: If you've read my column you will know that I've already said that. In terms of the Gorgon program, that is a very disappointing announcement by Chevron - a very disappointing announcement by Chevron considering that Chevron a US company has come in here to exploit our resource, a resource that belongs to all Australians, you think Chevron could do their bit to give back to Australian steel makers in the steel towns of Newcastle, Port Kembla and Whyalla - very disappointing, very disappointing. Do I blame Kevin Rudd, absolutely not. Do I blame Colin Barnett who went out publicly - publicly, the West Australian Premier and said we want to build the new wave of infrastructure programs in WA with Chinese steel and wait, Chinese labour . Anyone who was a bit of a conspiracy theorist would think he would be the Manchurian candidate, where are his loyalties, Peking or Perth. But it is a disappointing announcement and we will be working closely with the government to make sure that these mistakes don't happen again. And the way we will do that is through the Steel Industry Innovation Council and the Steel Supplier Advocate, two new policy announcements by the government last year which have just been set up and are just getting running. Disappointing, yes but we are going to try and make sure that we don't repeat that into the future. In terms of Tony Abbott, well the similarities between Abbott and Latham are remarkable, both shoot from the hip, both mad, both thinking that 'saying it how you see it' is in the best interests of how to run a country. You know it's always disappointing when Labor loses elections, but thank God we lost the 2004 election - thank God we lost the 2004 election and saved this country from a Latham Prime Ministership. And it is in the Liberal party's best interest and the coalition's best interest to make sure that they don't repeat that mistake this time. Can you image it; how could - how could someone like Scott Morrison, how could someone like Joe Hockey, how could someone like Christopher Pyne in any good conscience sit in an Abbott party room, sit in an Abbott cabinet table as he starts dictating out social policies which were abolished by the Vatican in Vatican II. I mean this guys bonkers and the reason why we need to talk about him is because frankly, a few of my friends that are sitting here today have been giving him an easy time, the media love him, why not; he's entertaining, he's fun, a bit mad, but good copy - the same way that Latham was in the lead up to the 2004 election. And it's a responsibility of trade unions to educate their members and to educate working people in this country about what will happen if this guy, who might seem like a good bloke, pretty fit, knows how to swim, knows how to wear a pair of budgie smugglers, gets into the Lodge and winds back the clock in so many ways that will rip away at the equalities and the wins that we have won since the 2007 election.
KEN RANDALL: Next question is from David Speers.
QUESTION: David Speers from Sky News Paul, thank you for educating us today.
PAUL HOWES: Any time David.
QUESTION: You call for a clear strategy on the role and type of skilled migration we want to see, what is your clear strategy for the role and type of skilled migration; do you have any problems with the current type of skilled migration? And on the population forecast of 36 million by 2050 Kevin Rudd says that's inevitable, do you agree and are you comfortable with a population of that size?
PAUL HOWES: Well my union which our union was formed before Australia was formed. We were formed in 1886 and we have always believed in a bigger Australia. Key policy planks of our union when we formed the Labor party in 1891 was about building a bigger population base that is still our position. In terms of migration, the issues about skilled migration are this, if there is a general labour shortage then we do not oppose the importation of labour to plug that shortage because we see it as the long term interest of our members here to have those projects finished. But if imported labour is being used as a tool to undermine Australian wages, to create wage competition between foreign and domestic labour, then we see that as a truly negative thing. The problem with the old John Howard regime is that employers could pay foreign labour significantly less they pay to domestic labour, therefore creating wage competition between Australian workers and foreign workers. Now the simple solution to this is if you're an employer and you have genuinely tested the market and you cannot get domestic labour to plug your gap then you have to pay that foreign worker exactly to the dollar to the cent what you'd be paying an Australian worker. It should not be cheaper to employ foreign labour it should be more expensive. It's a simple test. It's a simple test and if employers - if employers are honest - and if employers are decent and are genuinely disconcerned[sic] about plugging the gaps that exist from time to time then there should be no opposition - no opposition to that scheme because that in my view is the ultimate safety net. That in my view is the ultimate test. Unfortunately time and time and time again we see some unscrupulous employers not doing that and the experiences that my officials have gone through in exposing racketeering markets, trading markets in foreign labour, the conditions - the abhorrent conditions - that in today's Australia we're seeing people being treated as demonstrates to me time and time again that I can't trust employers to self-regulate on this. And there needs to be strong Government regulation of any scheme and a strong guarantee that there is a genuine market testing.
KEN RANDALL: A question from Misha Schubert?
MISHA SCHUBERT: Misha Schubert from The Age. I just wanted to bring you back to the issue of award modernization and ask I know you mounted quite a strong defence that it was the right thing to do by the Labor Government, but do you think in a sense that they have flubbed the politics of it and in having case studies pop up around the country with individual workers who argue they've been left worse off by award modernisation, it's exposed Labor to a risk on one of its traditionally strongest campaigning issues?
PAUL HOWES: Well I think, you know, the last couple of weeks when we've seen a few of these examples trotted out that Eric Abetz has been borrowing from our rule book and what we did in the lead up to the 2007 election as a union movement. Now when you look at the cases here if you're talking about someone being able to be legally employed for 1.5 hours do I oppose that? Absolutely. Do I support minimum engagement levels of three hours? Absolutely. Why? Well because if we didn't have these guarantees in place you can have a scenario where an employer employs a workers for two hours - so you're off now, come back in an hour and you'll start again. No paid lunch break. An employer can engage a worker for one and a half hours when they've had to commute 45 minutes there and 45 minutes back. There are very strong logical reasons why these guarantees are put in place. They're put in place for the protection of all workers. This actually makes sense. I'm disappointed that we haven't heard a strong defence of this and I would be defending this because frankly a safety net, a minimum level, a clear level playing field across the board is good for business - good for business - and it's good for workers and it's good for fairness. Now award modernisation has been a problem, but if you went out to the street today and if you went and walked around the leafy streets of Canberra and asked those workers that you ran into is the biggest problem affecting you in your life, in your workplace, in your world, award modernisation and I think most of them, unless they've avid readers of The Australian would say what is award modernisation? What is award modernisation? They know what unfair dismissals are - they know what unfair dismissals are - they know what a safety net is, but I think this is a massive storm in a teacup that's been beaten up because essentially the Government's had few issues in this front for the last two years and when you find one - and you might find the odd outspoken union leader for a small union that will say a few outrageous comments and score a few cheap headlines - you can beat that up into any story you want - the reality is of the impact on working people I think very little - very little.
KEN RANDALL: Steve Lewis?
QUESTION: Steve Lewis from News Limited papers including the mighty Hobart Mercury Mr Howes...
PAUL HOWES: I know, I've seen you there.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Two quick questions if I may - I notice in your Auspoll that you didn't ask voters why they had - why they've been turning off Kevin Rudd over the past couple of months as all the other polls have suggested. Do you think it's in part because of the Government's continued support for an emissions trading scheme? Is it time for the Government now to drop that emissions trading scheme which you've been quite critical of in the past? And secondly, in terms of the ACTU campaign that you've been talking about and revving up today, you've just come from the two day love in, what sort of tactics, what sort of campaign strategy are we likely to see? Will we see AWU officials going into marginal seats as they did in 2007 to directly support the reelection of a Rudd Government?
PAUL HOWES: I'll take the second half of your question first Steve. Well since 1891 when a group of my members met underneath the tree in Barcaldine and made a decision to form a Labor Party our union and our officials and our members have worked at every single election after, state, federal and local, to reelect Labor Governments. If you look into my rulebook the first aim of my union is to establish a party to represent the interests of working people in the Parliament. So no great shock here, we will be endorsing the Labor Party in the next election and yes we will be deploying resources to held Labor be re-elected.
Why? Because we know it's in the interests of our members and the interests of working people to have a voice, to have a seat at the table and to have a party that acts for them rather than against them. Now in terms of our polling, well Steve I have smart people that work for me that decide that these are the questions that we ask those people and I trust their advice, but you're always welcome to ring up and let me know what you want. Frankly do I think the CPRS has been given a good whack over the last couple of months? Of course, you know, I can read the papers. Now you say that I've been critical of the CPRS, well I was never critical of a thing called the CPRS, I was critical of the White Paper and I was critical of the Green Paper. But the legislation that went to the Parliament - the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - is in the interests of my members in the steel and aluminium and emissions intensive trade exposed industries. We support it because we believe that it's in the interest of our members to have their job secured through a smart sensible scheme that does the right thing by the economy and does the right thing by the environment. Do I think the ETS has been hard to sell? Yes because it's a complex policy. It's a complex bill, it's complex legislation and the reason why is it's a complex problem.You aren't going to fix climate change by planting a few trees and dolling out some cash to farmers. I mean the Coalition seems to think any environmental problem, any major issue affecting regional Australia, is solved by sending cheques to farmers.That's how you fix drought. That's how you fix water supply. Give a cocky a cheque, he'll cash it and everything will be fine. I mean this is a nonsense policy. The reality is is that every economist out there, every sensible government, anyone who knows anything about carbon pollution and also the way that markets work say that a market based solution is the only way that we'll reduce our carbon emissions. That's why my union supports the final version - the final version of the CPRS - and I think it's a difficult issue for the Government, but ultimately it's a difficult issue for the entire planet.
KEN RANDALL: Final question today from Laurie Wilson.
QUESTION: Laurie Wilson from APAC Mr Howes. How concerned are you that a plain speaking, hip shooting, budgie smuggling political leader whose side kick from St George who now seems to have achieved such a status, made such an impact on the Australian psyche that even his critics like you refer to him by his first name - how concerned are you - and you seem quite concerned given your comments today - that they may just have a winning formula that appeals to the Australian electorate this year?
PAUL HOWES: Oh I have no concern about Barnaby being promoted. I mean I think to be honest he should be Shadow Treasurer. Make him the leader. I want him there as long as possible, it's fantastic.He is the gift that never stops giving. I mean, you know, he has made your job so much easier. He comes here, gives a speech, all you have to do is cut and paste the copy. It doesn't have any analysis, it just demonstrates how mad this man is - mad. He's fantastic - I mean he's a great sport, you know, it almost - almost - makes me want to be a politician just to debate him. Not quite, but almost. Because this guy - this guy - and it also demonstrates to me - I mean the great thing about Barnaby demonstrates how the lack of seriousness in which Abbott takes his job. The fact that he would promote this man to be the Shadow Finance Minister, put him up against one of Labor's most talented ministers, Lindsay Tanner, on the basis of he used to do a couple of farmers' tax returns in St George therefore he knows the way the global economy works and how to balance the budget speaks volumes about Peter Costello's claims that Abbott not only has no understanding of the economy but he doesn't take it seriously either. Now I think Barnaby Joyce is a great gift to the Labor Party. I think that he will certainly attract a good following of support in certain National Party constituencies, but can I tell you the people that are voting for Barnaby, the people that love him at the moment, don't vote Labor anyway.But the people that may be the soft voters in outer-metropolitan Australia, those people who might be tempted to vote Liberal, I just hope - I hope - and I pray that the Coalition strategy is to send Barnaby out into regional - outer-metropolitan seats across Australia because I know what will happen and we all know what will happen when you see a goose like him go out there and try and sell that message. Thank you.
All electoral matter is authorised by Paul Howes, National Secretary