Address to the National Press Club - Q&A
DAVID CROWE, HOST: Well, thank you very much, Senator Watt, for that address. We have 18 journalists on the list to ask questions so there is plenty of questions on many topics. But I want to just start by asking about something you mentioned toward the end of that address. You are talking about these revelations about the CMFEU and the report that came out this week from Geoffrey Watson. And you made the point that employers were basically hiring bikies on sites, bikies that had been working with the union. But then you talked about setting up a forum that was going to tackle it and I thought to myself, well, I don't think bikies are going to be all that scared of a forum. Now, Labor dismantled the ABCC, so there isn't a tougher mechanism to enforce sort of stricter rules on construction sites, do you need some kind of greater power where you can address what employers are doing by hiring bikies on sites? What power would you like in order to stop that happening?
MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS: Well, for starters, David, I'm not convinced that we need a building industry specific regulator. You are right that we did abolish the ABCC on coming to office, and you have all heard the stories about some of the failures of that group. And it is also worth recognising that construction on ‑ the productivity on construction sites actually fell while the ABCC was around, not to mention the fact that all of these recent allegations occurred while the ABCC was around as well. So I'm not sure that the ABCC was quite the effective body that some might portray.
It is also worth remembering that when we abolished the ABCC we did give a range of extra powers and resources to the Fair Work Ombudsman to tackle issues on construction worksites, and in fact just this week I was briefed by the Fair Work Ombudsman again as to the work that they are doing. And I can tell you they have plenty of investigations underway, including in relation to the recent allegations.
Now, you are right, you know, no bikie is going to be scared of a forum, but the forum is not intended to be the sort of enforcement mechanism. We do have a range of enforcement mechanisms already to take action. Again, I met with the AFP this week to get a briefing from them. They have investigations underway as well, some at quite an advanced stage. The Fair Work Ombudsman is doing work in that space as well, and importantly the administrator, I think, is already taking extremely strong action. You know, having sacked 12 officials, suspended another eight with no doubt more work of that kind to come. So, you know, we do have a range of different enforcement mechanisms that are already starting, even at an early stage. The point of the forum is really to get some of these shared solutions. I privately met with union representatives, employer representatives over the last few weeks. They all say that things can change. I do pick up more of a willingness on both sides to talk about things that have been off the table before. I think that's a great opportunity that we shouldn't lose.
DAVID CROWE: Okay. Now, I encourage people to keep their questions to one question each. The next one is from Phil Coorey.
PHIL COOREY, AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW: Thanks, Crowey. Thanks, Minister. Phil Coorey from the AFR. Just on the CFMEU clean‑out. Three years ago a super fund called Maritime Super was judged by APRA to be the worst performing fund in the country. It was so bad it was forced to close. The chairman of that fund was Maritime Union boss Paddy Crumlin. Two days ago Mark Irving appointed him to the Cbus board as part of the clean out. What do you think of that decision? Or was that part of, you know, dealing with this in a cooperative fashion rather than conflict?
MURRAY WATT: Well, obviously I wasn't the minister at the time of the previous superannuation fund, and it is worth again remembering that the reason for Mark Irving appointing new people to the Cbus board was that he did remove three existing Cbus directors who had CFMEU affiliations. It is a matter for him who he chooses to represent workers. You know, we are Labor government, we support workers having a say on their retirement savings through having directors on super boards. I think one thing that a lot of people haven't recognised is that one of Mark Irving's roles is now effectively to be the union. He is the administrator of the union. His job is to represent the interests of union members and if he makes choices about who to appoint to those roles that's really a matter for him.
DAVID CROWE: The next question is from Anna Henderson.
ANNA HENDERSON, SBS WORLD NEWS: Anna Henderson from SBS World News. Today across the country as mentioned tens of thousands of people are marching. Our reporter has spoken to many people who say they were lifelong Labor voters, they won't be voting for Labor at the next election. Have you misjudged the mood amongst your base here? And what kind of impact do you expect to have on the people who are willing to go out and barrack for you ahead of the next election?
MURRAY WATT: Thanks Anna. Well, I guess the first point is that we haven't done this based on what we have decided is a politically convenient thing to do or not. We have done it because it was the right thing to do. There is no way that any government of any political persuasion could have ignored the allegations that we have seen come through the media ‑ and congratulations to the media for their work on that ‑ and not take action. But, again, as I said in my speech, we are not doing this to target CFMEU members, or union members, or construction workers at all. We are actually doing this to ensure that their union does get back to its job, which is representing the interests of those workers. You know, I saw on 60 Minutes the other night a long‑serving CFMEU ‑ I have forgotten if he was an official or delegate ‑ who was scathing about some of the stuff that has gone on there. So, you know, we are not concerned about the politics of it, we are concerned about doing the right thing. I notice that the Brisbane rally yesterday was significantly smaller in number than the last one. What we want to do is get this union back to what it should be doing, which is putting forward the interests of its members.
DAVID CROWE: Thanks. The next question is from Andrew Probyn.
ANDREW PROBYN, NINE NETWORK: Minister, Andrew Probyn from the Nine Network. The Productivity Commission has come out with a report today recommending free childcare for all families earning less than $80,000. What attitude do you bring to that kind of proposal and where would the money come from, given it would be something in the order of $17 billion a year?
MURRAY WATT: Sure. I am aware the Productivity Commission has released that report. You won't be surprised I haven't read it yet. But I'm also aware that Jason Clare and Anne Aly have done media on this today and gone into more detail. I mean, obviously our Government is committed to expanding the provision of early childhood education and care. We have already made investments in that regard and provided more subsidies to families to enable them to have cheaper childcare. I guess where I come in as the IR minister is focusing on the pay and conditions of those workers, and I understand that the report had a bit to say about the need to build a bigger and better early education workforce. Of course the pay rise that we just agreed to fund for early childhood education and care workers is a key part of that. I will be part of this discussion going forward, but it is obviously a little too early to be making commitments like what are you talking about.
DAVID CROWE: The next question is from Nicole Hegarty.
NICOLE HEGARTY, ABC NEWS: Nicole Hegarty from ABC News. You have spoken about the need for major change ‑ fundamental change to culture within the CFMEU. Do you think that is really possible when workplace reform ‑ not workplace reform ‑ whistleblower protections, rather, are not strong enough, as other would‑be whistleblowers are telling me, to enable them to overcome those continued threats from colleagues and come forward as part of this administration process?
MURRAY WATT: Yes. I recognise that there is many people involved in the construction industry, whether they be employers, workers, union representatives, who do have a real fear of retribution should they speak up about things that have been going on. Whether they have been on the employer side or the union side of the equation. You may have seen when we passed legislation we did extend whistleblower protections to people who communicate with the administrator. He has got a completely anonymous portal available for people to make complaints, and I encourage people to bring forward information that they have that can be dealt with. My role, I guess, as a minister and as a representative of the government is to make these opportunities available for people in the safest way we possibly can. We think we have done that, but if there is more that we can do on whistleblower protections of course we would have a look at that.
DAVID CROWE: The next question from Paul Karp.
PAUL KARP, THE GUARDIAN AUSTRALIA: Paul Karp from the Guardian. Thanks for your speech. You talked about the importance of not punishing workers, but the Fair Work Commission is going slow on approving CFMEU pay deals. So what should be done to shepherd those through, and can you understand why CFMEU members are annoyed and taking unprotected industrial action when they haven't had a pay rise?
MURRAY WATT: I saw your report on this a couple of weeks ago, Paul. Where this comes from is that the Fair Work Commission independent body, did make a decision to pay a little bit closer attention than they normally would to EBAs that were coming through the construction sector. But you may have seen only in the last week or so the administrator has met with the Fair Work Commission to come up with a method of being able to get those EBAs through as quickly as possible while making sure that all the requirements are met. So I'm confident that as a result of those changes we will start seeing those EBAs come through more quickly and that workers get the pay rise that has been agreed to.
PAUL KARP: Would you put a timeframe on it?
MURRAY WATT: No. I mean, again it is for the Fair Work Commission to work through.
As I understand it some of those EBAs have now been approved by the Fair Work Commission, but it seems that the processes are now in place to get moving.
DAVID CROWE: The next question from Olivia Ireland.
OLIVIA IRELAND, SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: Thank you for your speech, Minister. At the current Melbourne CFMEU rally ETU secretary Troy Gray has announced if there is continued attacks on working conditions of Victorian construction workers they will call a third rally on Wednesday for a 72 hour stoppage making it a wildcat strike. Will you intervene to stop the wildcat strike in Victoria.
MURRAY WATT: That's the first I have heard of that, Olivia, so I will obviously need to give that some consideration. You know, I think it is important to note that a rally that has been held in Melbourne today is primarily about an EBA dispute within the industry rather than about the CFMEU administration itself. You know, workers have got rights to take protected action under our legislation. And, you know, it's a matter for Mr Gray how he chooses to describe those kind of things.
DAVID CROWE: Would it only inflame the situation if you did take action against a wildcat strike?
MURRAY WATT: I'm not going to predict what might happen about something that I might or might not do. But of course, we are trying ‑ we are trying to approach this in a constructive way. You know, this is an immense task that we are taking on, that the administrator is taking on, that his entire team are taking on, that the union movement and employers are taking on. And I feel that the role that I have got in this is ensuring that workers continue to get paid fairly, that we have safe workforces ‑ workplaces for construction workers to go to, that employers can negotiate without fears of violence and intimidation. That workers and unions can negotiate free of fear of violence and intimidation. That's what our focus is. And, you know, speaking to the members directly about what we are doing, what the administrator is doing to ensure that their rights are respected. This is not an exercise in trying to strip people's rights, this is an exercise actually in building a better and more effective construction union that properly represents the interests is of those members.
DAVID CROWE: The next question from Lachlan Leeming.
LACHLAN LEEMING, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Hi Minister, Lachlan Leeming here from the Daily Telegraph. Minister, you have been highly critical of the Greens stepping into the space vacated by Labor when you put the CFMEU into administration. Given the scale of donations and the use of union volunteers that Labor has relied on in past elections, do you think this has put you at an electoral disadvantage and will it make it harder to win seats back from the Greens?
MURRAY WATT: I guess it's a bit of like the question from Anna. We haven't done this because we have made some political calculation about what's in our interests. There is one party that's done that and they are called the Greens. That explains their behaviour over the last few weeks on this and I think that's to their shame. And I think a lot of Australians, including in Greens seats, like where I come from in Queensland, have noticed this. Our candidates have picked it up on the doors as they are going around door‑knocking. This is being raised with them. So that's up to the Greens how they approach this and the political calculations they make. What we are doing is trying to do the right thing to clean up the leadership of this union, to ensure that it looks after its members, and it is up to those people what they decide to do about political campaigning.
LACHLAN LEEMING: Do you think it will hurt you come election time?
MURRAY WATT: Again, honestly it's not what we have been thinking about. I'm sure there will be some people who support it and some people who oppose it. But I think again it is worth pointing out that the vast majority of unions in Australia support this union being cleaned up. The vast majority of union members across the country feel that way as well. And in many cases that's because they have been subjected themselves to some of the violence and intimidation that has come from the leadership of that union. So it is simply not the case that there is a uniform opposition to this from the union movement. Actually completely the opposite.
DAVID CROWE: Could I turn that question around given the approach of the election. And you are critical of the Greens for what they are ‑ you know, their stance on the CFMEU. But these questions about the union protests, they show that ordinary union members, and thousands of them, are giving up on Labor and they are looking at the Greens. And the Greens are giving them some reason to support them. So if there was one of those union members standing in this room right now, what would you say to that union member about why they should vote Labor and not vote Green at the next election given that they are being promised something they want by the Greens.
MURRAY WATT: I have actually had those exact discussions with CFMEU members and other construction union members over the last few weeks. And, you know, they can be challenging conversations. What I say to them is firstly this is difficult action. Forget about being difficult for governments, it is difficult action for union members in that union. It is a difficult thing for people to have to go through. But many of them acknowledge that their leadership has engaged in behaviour that doesn't reflect well on them as a union, doesn't reflect well on the union movement, and in many cases is being counter‑productive to them getting good outcomes on site. But also what I say to them is that even if people are upset about what we have done around the CFMEU, look at all those things that I've gone through in this speech. Wages are rising, employment is rising, labour hire workers are getting permanent work for the first time in a very long time. You know, the list goes on. And all of that is at risk if there is a change of government at the next election. And that's not me saying it, that's Peter Dutton saying it, it is Michaelia Cash saying it, it is Angus Taylor saying it, it is Jane Hume saying that. And so, I guess, you know, whether they be members of that union or not, will have choices to make at the next election around who is the government that will best protect their workplace rights. And I think the answer is pretty clear.
DAVID CROWE: The next question is from Rhiannon Down.
RHIANNON DOWN, THE AUSTRALIAN: Thank you for your speech, Rhiannon Down from the Australian newspaper. Last night the prime minister talked about wanting to work together with business but would not indicate a willingness to back down on their chief concerns, which is IR reform. Will you consider changes to Labor's laws to build better relations with business? Can you understand why corporate Australia will see the consensus rhetoric as empty if it is not backed by policy changes?
MURRAY WATT: Well, no, we are not looking at backing down on the industrial relations laws that we have introduced and that we took to the last election and that are delivering secure jobs, better pay, safer workplaces, more cooperative workplaces and benefits for employers as well. I acknowledge that there are some employer groups and some employers who don't support some of the changes we have made. They didn't support them before the election either; they didn't support them when they were going through Parliament. But one of the things you will have noticed that I have done today is go through some of the figures that demonstrate this is not all doom and gloom for employers. Productivity is up a little bit. No this the as much as we would like, but a hell of a lot better than it was under the Coalition. Industrial action is significantly down. I mean, for all the people out there talking about workplaces full of conflict, the facts don't back it up. So employment is up. More bargaining agreements being reached. So, sure, there are some employer groups and some employers who are unhappy, there are a hell of a lot of others who are getting out there forming agreements cooperatively, yielding better productivity, yielding better flexibility, hanging on to staff in a really tight labour market. So it is not all one way.
DAVID CROWE: The next question from Ben Westcott.
BEN WESTCOTT, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Ben Westcott from Bloomberg. Thank you so much for your speech, Minister. You mentioned right to disconnect laws and in particular things like answering calls, responding to emails. But employment lawyers say that these laws will largely not affect white collar workers due to reasonable hours clauses in their contracts. It is mostly going to be people who don't ‑ you know, who aren't office workers and things like that. Do you accept that these laws are quite ‑ may not have been quite limited in scope as to who they might effect and would you be looking to potentially expand them or change their definition to ensure they reach more white collar jobs?
MURRAY WATT: Well, it's the first time anyone has asked me to expand the right to disconnect, so I haven't thought about that whatsoever. I mean, I think it's a good thing that in some people's contracts, in some people's EBAs that there is already a right to disconnect. In fact, I think there are some media organisations that have rights to disconnect in their EBAs. The problem is that it is by no means everyone. And what we have done is introduce a new standard across the workforce that makes this a right whether you have got it in your EBA or your individual contract or not. And, again, it's another area where we have seen the Coalition just go out and frankly lie about what this right is about. They have lied by saying that employers don't have the ability to contact their employers ‑ their workers after hours. It is just not true. It is about stopping disciplinary action against an employee who chooses to not respond to an email or a text message when they are not being paid. On a Saturday night, on a Sunday afternoon when they are at their soccer with their kids or whatever it is. But, no, look, I have already said more generally we have no plans whatsoever to introduce anymore workplace reform this term and that would include the right to disconnect.
BEN WESTCOTT: Thank you.
DAVID CROWE: The next question is from Andrew Brown.
ANDREW BROWN, AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS: Andrew Brown from Australian Associated Press. Thanks for your speech, Minister. Just going back to the right to disconnect laws. Obviously, they have been in place for a month and things are still getting tested out, but where do you kind of see the first lot of legal challenges to it or the first big test for these right to disconnect laws? And if you were an employee at a company and your boss called you after hours, let's for argument's sake call him Anthony, what would your reaction be? Would you pick up the phone or would you enjoy your right to disconnect on a late night after work?
MURRAY WATT: Well, I can't imagine which Anthony you are referring to, who may or may not be my boss. But the broader point. You know, you are right. Like all new laws there will need to be interpretation by courts and tribunals. That's nothing unique about this law. Every time we introduce a new law courts shed further light on what the acceptable bounds are. But what we did in passing the legislation was give guidance and factors that the Fair Work Commission should take into account in determining what is reasonable after‑hours contact or not. Such as the seniority of the worker. You know, without getting too big for my boots I'm probably reasonably senior in my workplace and I probably could be contacted by someone called Anthony after hours if he chose to do so. But I don't think it will be acceptable for one of the most junior staff in my office to be. And similarly in another workforce. If it's an emergency situation that's different to a run‑of‑the‑mill email that doesn't need to be read on a Saturday night and could be responded to on the Monday. So we have given the guidance that we think is needed to employers and employees. And as I said on the day that this commenced, we are encouraging employers and their workers to talk about these issues and work out what is reasonable in their circumstances.
DAVID CROWE: The next question from Dan Jervis‑Bardy.
DAN JERVIS-BARDY, THE WEST AUSTRALIAN: Dan Jervis‑Bardy from The West Australian. Thanks for your speech, Senator Watt. You described that or you said that IR will be a key battleground at the next election. You are clearly going to spend a lot of time talking about what the Coalition might do. But what about Labor's offering? What does the IR agenda look like in the second term of an Albanese Government and can employers expect further changes?
MURRAY WATT: Can I just pick you up on one thing there, Dan. I won't be talking about what the Opposition might do, I will be talking about what the Opposition have already promised to do. Strip casual rights. Strip the right to disconnect. Jane Hume was very strongly hinting on the weekend at stripping labour hire rights in the same job same pay. Angus Taylor has talked about more repeals. So, I feel very comfortable going out there and talking about what the Coalition will do because they have said they will. As per our agenda going forward, you will be surprised to hear that I have been a little bit busy dealing with other things over the last few weeks so we haven't really commenced thinking about a second term agenda. My priority for the remainder of this term is bedding down the legislation and the changes that we have made, ensuring that they are working as they were intended. We are commissioning a review of the legislative changes. That was committed to as part of passing the legislation and it will no doubt highlight what's working and what could be tweaked. But that ‑ you know, we wouldn't be thinking about doing that this side of election.
DAN JERVIS‑BARDY: What's the timeframe of the release?
MURRAY WATT: Of the review?
DAN JERVIS‑BARDY: Yes.
MURRAY WATT: My recollection is we are looking at the review being finalised by the end of January.
DAVID CROWE: So the Government went to the last election promising to lift wages but it didn't promise multi‑employer bargaining. That emerged after the election. So it wasn't put to voters beforehand. Can you say that given this review timeframe that before the next election you will put your IR agenda to voters or will there be some surprises after the election?
MURRAY WATT: Well, I think governments always take items to an election and then deliver extra things after they are elected. And you have obviously got to make a judgment about whether you think that's within the spirit of your mandate or not. And, again, I said a bit in the speech about multi‑employer bargaining. It is not wreaking the havoc that people are arguing. We have had one single interest multi‑employer agreement reached since the law was changed in an industry that probably most people have had no experience of whatsoever, heating, ventilation and air conditioning. So yes, but I think, you know, governments do things as situations emerge. But, of course, I'm sure we will have something to say about workplace relations before the election.
DAVID CROWE: The next question is from Anthony Galloway.
ANTHONY GALLOWAY, CAPITAL BRIEF: Thank you. Anthony Galloway from Capital Brief. Thank you for your speech, Minister. Angus Taylor also gave a speech in Melbourne today where he said that ‑ he hit out at Labor for really relying on public sector growth to prop up productivity. He said, "The more we rely on public sector growth to prop up the economy the further we drift from the engines of growth; our businesses and industries". Is Angus Taylor right that Labor is relying on public sector growth to prop up the economy? And what is Labor's plan to actually foster innovation and productivity gains?
MURRAY WATT: Well, of course economic growth in any country is partly reliant on public sector and partly reliant on the private sector. You will have seen only a week or two ago Jim Chalmers acknowledged with the new National Accounts that it was public spending that largely had a lot to do with the fact that we are still growing as an economy. And we have seen various cheap shots taken by the Opposition about cut this, cut that, you’re spending too much ‑ doing too much public spending. They are arguing we should be in recession. If one of the key things keeping the economy growing is public spending and you argue to cut public spending, you are arguing to go into recession. And that's exactly what the Opposition are doing: $315 billion of cuts. Imagine the havoc that would cause in the Australian economy. So on productivity, again I said in the speech we do want to see productivity grow further. It is growing faster than it did under the Coalition but we know there is more to do. The question really is how do you get productivity growth? What we know from the Coalition is they think it is all about cutting wages, flexible labour markets ‑ and we know what they mean by that: less rights. Our approach: Investing in skills; investing in infrastructure; investing in innovation. Our Future Made in Australia is critical agenda to this. The Opposition say they are against our Future Made in Australia agenda. I don't know if they are against the future or making things in Australia. One or the other. Our competition reform. So, we have got a range of different policies underway that are about lifting productivity, but we don't think the way to get there is to take people's pay off them and send the economy into recession.
DAVID CROWE: The next question is from Melissa Coade.
MELISSA COADE, THE MANDARIN: Hi, Minister, Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. Your portfolio obviously matters to every Australian, it is about people's livelihoods. I would love you to just comment on this tension. You made a very wonky reference to tripartism and the need to collaborate and work together. But then also in your speech you talked about, you know, key points in the election battleground being workers, industrial relations and also cost of living. To the everyday punter, how can they sort of hold these two ideas of consensus‑building, working together, making good public policy and then that high conflict sort of violent language we use when we talk about the election battleground and the contest of ideas?
MURRAY WATT: Well, I guess what I'm talking about with tripartism, obviously, is governments, unions and employers working together. I don't really expect the Coalition to want to be part of that and make it quadtism, or whatever the word would be. We are going to highlight the difference between our policies and the secure jobs, better pay, safer workplaces they are delivering and the pay cuts and stripping of rights that would happen under the Coalition because they say they will. But, I mean, it is why I mentioned cooperation several times in the speech, is that that is yielding positive results for workers and for employers. That's always been the Labor way to do industrial relations in that way. It has always been the Coalition way to engage in conflict. It is one of the unique things about Labor in this space is that we work with businesses and unions. And the Greens don't want to talk to business, the Coalition don't want to talk to unions. So the way we operate is exactly around trying to build that consensus. You won't always agree. I'm sure the ACTU didn't agree with every single thing in our workplace relations legislation, just as employer groups didn't agree with everything. But you hammer out as many outcomes as you possibly can for the benefit of everyday Australians.
DAVID CROWE: Just quickly on the issue of working together or maybe not. As the election nears are you available for a debate with your opposite number here at the National Press Club with Michaelia Cash?
MURRAY WATT: Do I look enthusiastic enough about that? I would love that.
DAVID CROWE: We will take that as a yes.
MURRAY WATT: I will do five if you will come. If you will come. And we will have mics on.
DAVID CROWE: You bet.
MURRAY WATT: The whole time.
DAVID CROWE: Lock that in. We now have a question from Andrew Tillett.
ANDREW TILLETT, THE FINANCIAL REVIEW: Thanks, David. Andrew Tillett from the Financial Review and also here at the Press Club. The review you mentioned of IR that you will have finished by January, can you say who is actually doing that and are there any tweaks that you might look at out of that review? Are there things that you do think has some merit?
MURRAY WATT: So we are still finalising the appointment of the reviewer but I know it's not very far away. I'm sure we will let you know about that once it is actually finalised. What we are looking at is some pretty senior industrial law academics, specialists in the field. So ‑ but we haven't quite settled on the names yet. I'm not going into it with an agenda around particular tweaks. I have obviously had things raised with me by employers, I have had things raised with me by unions. They will have an opportunity to put forward their submissions and we will see what the reviewers have got to say. But I'm not going into it with an agenda.
ANDREW TILLETT: Thank you.
DAVID CROWE: The next question, in fact the last question is from David Speers.
DAVID SPEERS, ABC: Lucky last.
MURRAY WATT: Could have cut it off one earlier.
DAVID SPEERS: Minister, that you for the speech. You did mention productivity is growing a little bit. I think everyone from the Reserve Bank down would like to see it grow more than "a little bit". What are you going to do to get productivity going?
MURRAY WATT: Yes, so the figures ‑ the June quarter we did see a bit of a fall in productivity. The couple of quarters before that there had been increases. So it is a bit up and down quarter to quarter. But as I say, the most recent figures show that it has grown by half a per cent over the last year. Nothing to get out there and crow about but at least it is heading in the right direction. And, again, you know, when the Coalition were in power we had our worst decade of productivity growth in over 60 years. So we are not going to change that overnight. As for what we are going to do, as I said earlier it is about investing in people; it is about investing in infrastructure; it is about investing in new jobs; in new industries; it is about investing in innovation. And each of those things, the Opposition has pretty clearly signalled they are opposed to one way or another which really explains why the only way they have got to go to lift productivity is to cut people's wages and the experience while they are in office shows that doesn't work. So I would argue that Labor has a much stronger productivity agenda. It will take a bit of time to start flowing through given where we started out. But those are the kind of investments that we think will make the economy more productive and raise living standards for all Australians.
DAVID CROWE: Thank you very much. Now, I know you have got to go to Senate Question Time.
MURRAY WATT: Unfortunately, I do.
DAVID CROWE: Before you do that I have here membership of the National Press Club because we would love to have you back here especially for that debate. So please join me in thanking Murray Watt.
MURRAY WATT: Thank you. Thanks, David.