Interview with Paul Bongiorno, Ten's - Meet the press -, 23 October 2011

Meet the Press with Paul Bongiorno. And welcome to the program, Eric Abetz. Good morning, Senator. Good morning. Has the Qantas dispute reached a stage in your view of threatening the national economy? If it hasnít reached the stage of threatening the national economy, it is getting very close to it. And the Government unfortunately is impotent in this regard because I think Julia Gillard fears Tony Sheldon may well soon become her boss when he becomes the national president of the ALP. And so weíve got this bizarre situation where the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, is willing to weigh in to the dispute and tell it as it is ñ talk about the damage itís causing, but Ms Gillard and Senator Evans, the responsible minister, are quite silent in relation to this issue. Well, the Prime Minister seemed to buy in earlier in the week ñ we did see the engineers put their strike action or their bans on hold for three weeks. Do you put that down to the Government or merely union tactics? The suspension of industrial activity by the union leadership is an industrial tactic. What it does is create even greater uncertainty for the tourism industry and the travelling public ñ as a result of which, people wonít be booking three weeks in advance with Qantas. And I simply say to the workers ñ and especially the union leadership that are driving this dispute ñ if you want job security, how about providing security to the brand and to the travelling public and calls for consumer boycotts of the company that actually pays your wages is not exactly the smartest thing to do. Do you have any sympathy for the unions? They make a fairly strong case that what weíre seeing here is the dismantling of Qantas in breach of the original Qantas sale act? I donít agree with argument. With these disputes, itís always an issue of two sides negotiating and hopefully they can resolve issues. But when you have union leadership talking about boycotts of the brand up until Christmas, as we go in to the busiest time of the year, you really do have to start asking what is motivating the union leadership by asking for such a damaging cause of action, because Australians do have alternatives. They do have Jetstar, they do have ***, they do have ***, they do have Rex, they do have Skywest and all the other airlines. So what should the Government do? In fact, what can it do? I see a number of industrial law experts say that unless thereís an all-out strike or a lockout, thereís really nothing under the Fair Work Act the Government can do? The Government, I think, has to ask itself and say to the Australian people, ìIs this the way they intended the Fair Work Act to operate?î It is now their legislation. It was the legislation that was going to resolve all these matters. It needs teeth in other words? Well, what it needs is a minister and a Prime Minister that is willing to use the toolkit Labor provided for itself to deal with these matters. And it is for Labor to explain why they are not acting, why theyíre impotent. And I fear the reason for their impotence is that Julia Gillard in particular is concerned that her boss will soon be Tony Sheldon, the national secretary of the Transport Workers Union. An interesting way of looking at it. Well, Tony Abbott has been criticised by Liberal heavyweights Peter Costello and Peter Reith for comments like this. We want to work within the existing act and the existing act obviously has no place for individual statutory contracts. Now Senator Abetz, we know the existing act doesnít, but it does have a thing called ìindustrial flexibility arrangementsî. And it wouldnít be too hard for an incoming Abbott Government to turn these flexible arrangements in to AWAs, would it? The individual flexibility agreements were deliberately put into the legislation after Labor realised that you do need flexibility. We now have the Minister, Chris Evans, acknowledging that the individual flexibility agreements are not being taken up as was anticipated because they have been made too restrictive, either by Enterprise Bargaining Agreements, the modern awards, or whatever. And so the Minister himself has flagged that the Government is looking at fleshing out the individual flexibility agreement arrangements. And given that weíre going to have a review of the operation of the Fair Work Act, commencing as of January 1 next year, I encourage everybody that has a view on how we can flesh these out to make them actually work for the benefit of workers and employers, they should make a submission. Well, just finally in this segment, an incoming Abbott Government, would it have a root and branch review of the Fair Work Act? The Fair Work Act is the framework under which weíll operate. We have said that now on a number of occasions. What we will do is identify the practical problems and then provide practical solutions to those problems, hopefully in dialogue with both the trade union movement and employer groups and individual workers and small businesses, so that we get a system that looks after everybodyís interests. I think we swung the pendulum too far. Some of the activities by trade union leadership in recent times suggest that might be swung the other way too far. So we just want a sensible middle-of-the-road, practical-solution-for-practical-problems approach and thatís what weíre committed to doing. Thatís very non-threatening, Senator. Time for a break. Youíre on ëMeet the Pressí with Senate Opposition Leader Eric Abetz and welcome to the panel, Alison Carabine, ABC Radio National Breakfast and Malcolm Farr, news.com.au. Good morning. Good morning, Paul. The Carbon Tax will be fiercely debated but resolutely passed when the Senate returns in a week. The Greensí numbers are the key, and their senators are already aggressively dismissing Tony Abbottís blood oath to repeal it. Itís the great big new lie of Australian politics heís telling. On the one hand, he needs people to believe that he will repeal the clean energy package and on the other hand, he knows full well that he wouldnít do it. Eric Abetz, there is a growing body of opinion that your policy to scrap the Carbon Tax and all related measures canít be delivered. The policy has been good for an opposition but is unworkable for a Coalition Government. Donít you have an emerging credibility gap here? Absolutely not. The credibility gap is with a Government that promised no Carbon Tax and is now foisting one on the Australian people. We have kept the bipartisan position that was there before the last election, which was no Carbon Tax. If the Australian people give the Coalition the privilege of Government after the next election, it will be because we have promised to dismantle the Carbon Tax. On that basis, it will beholden upon the Parliament to help us unravel and dismantle the Carbon Tax, just as Kevin Rudd demanded that of us in relation to matters workplace relations after the 2007 election. But by the time of the next election, the Carbon Tax and its associated apparatus would have been the law of the land. Tony Abbottís blood pledge to scrap the tax may have worked a treat with the public but you are spooking some business, especially the electricity sector. Donít they need the type of investment certainty that you should be delivering? You are assuming that the next election will be two years away. Nobody really knows when the next election will be. In relation to certainty, we as a Coalition are saying right now, up-front, before coming to Government, what our policy will be and businesses can make the judgment as to whether our policies are likely to be endorsed by the Australian people. And if that i s likely to happen, whether they should be planning on that basis. It is quite strange that people assert that somehow the Coalition is introducing uncertainty into the equation when it was Labor, only 12 months ago, that was saying ëno Carbon Taxí and then did a complete backflip. Thatís what creates uncertainty in the investment community and we have been very certain ñ weíve been very clear ñ and we have had the same approach since before the last election. Senator, what sort of reception are you going to give a carbon pricing legislation in the Senate? Are you going to filibuster and try and push it off to a vote next year, are you going to accept the inevitable and the majority view of the Senate? The indication so far over the cigarette packaging is that youíre prepared to dig big ditches and stay there ñ whatís going to happen? I donít agree with your assessment in relation to plain packaging, but moving on to the Carbon Tax, we will fight the Carbon Tax every single step of the way because we are opposed to it and we will remind every single Labor Senator, especially those elected at the last election, that they had been elected on a promise of no Carbon Tax. And itís passing strange ñand this is what a lot of Australians are asking ñ how is it when every single Labor and Coalition member of the Parliament is elected on a no-Carbon Tax platform that somehow it can get through the Parliament? What it shows is that Bob Brown is running the show and Julia Gillard and Labor ... Itís all the numbers ... are meekly following. Itís the numbers of the Parliament, the democratically-elected members of the Parliament have a view and we know what that view will be in the Senate in terms of this legislation. Itís not an abrogation of democracy, itís an exercise in democracy. So how does that give you a right to try and block it? No, because these people in the democratic system actually were elected on the basis of no Carbon Tax. And so that is something that these elected representatives cannot overcome. They made a solemn promise. Julia Gillard stared down the camera lens and said, ìThere will be no Carbon Tax.î When we as a Coalition said, ìdonít trust them,î Wayne Swan came out, accused us of being hysterical. Itís now quite obvious we werenít being hysterical, we were being historical, and history will record this as one of the biggest attempted deceptions of the Australian people. Well Senator, the Coalitionís asylum seeker policies came under fire during the week. The Navy said turning back the boats was never safe and one of the architects of the Pacific Solution said it would no longer work. Hereís Mr Metcalfe. The combination of circumstances that existed at the end of 2001 could not be repeated with success. Senator, could you outline the circumstances in which a boat intercepted in international waters could be turned around and sent back to say, Indonesia? Australia did that, as I understand it, about half a dozen times with success. And what we need to remember is that the Coalition has a suite of policies. We donít say ìNauru is the only solution,î we donít say ìtemporary protection visas are the only solution,î we donít say ìturning back the boats is the only solution.î But itís a solution... Keep in mind, Kevin Rudd was most anxious to tell the Australian people just before the 2007 election that he would turn back the boats. Tony Abbottís been saying that since the August election campaign. Itís never been made clear how that would be done because Indonesia doesnít want boats being propelled back to it. And the Navy has warned it would be very, very dangerous. But you persist with the policy. I just want to know the circumstances in which it could be implemented? The circumstances would clearly be if those that are confronting the illegal ships or boats coming in to Australia, make the determination that it is safe ñ number one ñ to do so. That the boat is appropriately seaworthy to be able to take the journey back. And it would have to be a measure and a decision undertaken by those in the field ñ if you can use that term ñ about the ocean and the sea, but those that are there practically engaging with them would need to make that call. But we are saying if it were determined that it could be safe, that it could be undertaken, like it was done half a dozen times before, that sends a huge message to the people smugglers and those that would seek to engage them. Thank you very much, Senator Eric Abetz. Thanks a lot.