House debates
Monday, 19 June 2006
Questions without Notice
Workplace Relations
2:14 pm
Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows the one previously asked on this side of the House and the one before on his side of the House. Is the Prime Minister aware of the concluding paragraph of Joe de Bruyn’s letter to the Australian, which analyses the actual situation and potential situation of Ms Harris under her previous terms of employment and that which she was offered, in which Mr de Bruyn concludes:
In view of the facts as stated above, the claims made about the Spotlight AWA have actually understated the potential impact on Ms Harris had she accepted the company’s proposal, as the Prime Minister has suggested.
I also refer the Prime Minister to a press conference called by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on Saturday to boast about a pay cut of less than $90 for Spotlight worker Annette Harris. Can the Prime Minister inform the House what size of pay cut he believes is good for working Australians? Is it $40, $60 or $80 a week?
John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In answer to the honourable member’s question, I thought the news conference delivered by my colleague on Saturday was a very good news conference. He is, along with other members of this government, a great believer in wage increases. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition what I think is a good wage increase, not wage cut. A good wage increase is about 16.8 per cent in real terms over 10 years. That is a very good one. I will tell you what is a bad real wage increase: 1.3 per cent over 13 years, because that is the real comparison. Can I finally say—again—that Mr de Bruyn is a union figure for whom I have considerable respect. I think he is a very good man. We do not agree on everything, but he is a very fair man and that is why he was disturbed by the way in which some of the Leader of the Opposition’s frontbench colleagues were distorting the truth.