J PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT 30 MRCH 1979
PRIME MINISTER: TALK-BACK, RADIO STATION 2KA, PENRITH, NSIV
Question: It's my pleasure to welcome to the studio the Prime Minister of
Australia, Mr. Malcolm Fraser. Mr. Fraser, we would like to thank
you for particularly making yourself accessible to the people
of the Western suburbs and the Blue Mountains in an open-line
situation. Prime Minister:
I'm very happy to be here, thank you.
Quetion:
We probably both agree, actually, that these same people know
which issues are crucial to them and so I am not going to talk
with you about politics. We will be taking a first caller in
just a couple of minutes. I wonder if you would mind satisfying
a great curiosity for us it's something that many people wonder
about and probably when little boys are born there would be very
few of them that got through to the age of 6 months when Mum or
Dad or somebody in the family didn't say " one day he will be
the Prime Minister of Australia'" and although they may say it in
jest at the time, it's obvious that to * be Prime Minister does
epitomise success. What of the experience,-the personal experience,
of being Prime Minister would you be prepared to share with us?
Prime Minister:
I think the important thing about the job, or the most rewarding
in any sort of personal sense, is when things go right and
policies are effective and that results in a better life for a
large number of Australians. Obviously, there are difficulties
difficulties with any job there are exciting times and there are
times when it is just plain hard work. The part that I regret
most I think about this particular job is the fact that you have
to make very positive efforts to try and shut yourself away with
your family occasionally.. It's very hard to get any sort of
family privacy of a kind which most families in Australia have
and believe is their right. If we ' went off for a holiday
somewhere together there would probably be some cameras following
and wanting to take pictures of the Fraser family at play.
Question: Before you became Prime Minister, when you were thinking perhaps
in terms as many politicians no doubt do did you find the
concept somewhat awesome?
Prime Minister:
I think the concept is slightly awesome. But you don't really
think ' that's where I want to get, that's what I want to do
as a politician'. I didn't. The only objective I had, in a sense,
/ 2
2-
Prime Minister: ( continued)
was to do whatever job I had at the time as well as I could
and whether that was representing my own electorate, which is
the important first duty of any politician to respond to the
needs and requirements, the concerns of his own people. To this
day I still have a very large electoral correspondence. When
you are a Minister alright, you've got a job so you just
do that particular job as well as you can. I think if people
are trying to plan, say ' look, I'm going to be in a certain
position, I've got to get somewhere else' then you never are
content with what you are in fact doing.
Question: Does the pressure of being in such a pivot of public expectation,
public attention and things like this, does it change your
outlook on life. The pressures, the public image, the things
that people expect you to measure up to does it bring immense
pressure on you as a person?
Prime Minister:
The thing that brings pressure is just the plain amount of work
because there is a great deal and a lot has to be delegated to
other people, to other Ministers. But there are always
requirements on a Prime Minister and you never know when some sort
of emergency might arise which nobody hears anything about but
it is just one of those things that a Prime Minister has to deal
with. That can land you in with several hours additional work
where you have to give attention to it with other other Ministers,
on top of what was already a reasonably full day. That sort of
thing is always happening. You have to learn to pace yourself,
know what you can do, know what you can't,. in terms of physical
endurance and I think that's important because I have seen people
in the Parliament just do too much. You go on doing too much
for too long and you end up by not being able to do anything at
all. That's not much help to you, your family, your Parliament
or your constituents.
Question: Probably not a speciality, of politicians. Probably 20 or 30 years
ago it was much more easy for the public to differentiate between
the philosophies and the principles of the major parties. These
days it is not uncommon at all to overhear people in conversation
saying ' well, it doesn't really matter to me very much who is in
power because there isn't m -uch difference between the two'. It is
often said in fact that the Liberal-Country Coalition has become
more left and the Labor Party has gone more towards the middle
themselves. Could you tell us in fairly simple, concise terms
what the Liberal Party is all about? 3
-3
Prime Minister:
Yes. People have often said that Parties move in one direction,
Parties move in another. I think the essential differences
between the two Parties are really just the same as they ever were.
Thc Liberal Party is all. about trying to create circumstanccs
in society where men and women can go about their own lives in
their own way and work out their own future; can plan for that
future with confidence; make their plans for their children;
and where individuality, I think, is encouraged to the maximum.
The things that Government has to do certainly we want to
and do in termis of welfare and programmes for disadvantaged people
but we don't try and prescribe remedies for great groups of
people. That's something that they themselves ought to seek and
find for themselves.
Question: Do you assume that basically, when you say people as individuals,
do you assume that they all have equal opportunity to take
advantage of whatever environment they are in, whatever is offered
to them by the Government at the time?
Prime Minister:
Well it depends what the programme might be. We've got many
programmes which are in a sense designed for specific groups of
people and which other people can't qualify for. Aborigines
are eligible for a whole host of programmes which help with
education, which aren't available to white people. In some parts
of Australia that creates a problem. So there is not, in a sense,
equal opportunity there. An Aboriginal stockman, a white stockman,
on the same property in Western Queensland, being paid the same
wage, but the Aborigine gets a very hefty subsidy if his kids
are going to school. The white stockman doesn't. So these things
can work in many different ways.
Question: Could we possibly get back to basic principles for a second then.
You've described what you feel to be the basic principles of the
Liberal Party. How would you compare that with what the Labor
Party is about?
Prime Minister:
I think the Labor Party is much more inclined to prescribe
solutions, because I think they have much more a view that they
from Canberra can determine what is best for people. We basically
reject that view. We believe that people ought to make their own
minds up, make their own decisions and whether it is let me
an example-support for local Government. We just say here is
the support, you decide how you want to spend it. The Labor Party
is much more inclined to say " here is the support and this is
the way you must spend it". I think that has a different philosophy.
To the maximum extent Governments need to trust people to look
after their own affairs and make their own decisions and if
necessary, their own mistakes. / 4
-4
Question: I think perhaps, in any case, you accidently mentioned the
magic word and that was " local Government" and probably on that
note, it is time to take our first call.
CALLER: I'm very glad I don't have your degree of stress or your lack
of privacy. I don't envy you those problems.
Prime Minister:
Oh well, it's voluntary, it's not compulsory.
CALLER: I would like to compliment you on your efforts to keep inflation
down. Our business is more-secure and it is keeping more people
in work because of it. But I don't feel the same way about the
Federal Government's efforts in health care. We have a national
health bill, if I remember correctly, of something like $ 7 billion
a year.
Prime Minister:
Health and welfare together would be something of that order.
Don't tie me to the exact figures, but health and welfare, together...
CALLER: A colossal...
Prime Minister:
is a colossal sum, it really is.
CALLER: I know how concerned the Government has been and we have a deficit
of $ 3000 million, $ 3 billion.
Prime Minister:
About that, yes.
CALLER: There seems to be a clear line of thought that if something can
be done with the nation's health costs we may improve the
nation's total financial situation very considerably. When we
look at the health situation, heart disease and cancer are
virtually at epidemic proportions. Half the population of
the St. Mary's area are chronically ill, according to a Government
survey with bad backs, nervous trouble, heart disease and high
blood pressure and much of the medical research now that's coming
out is pointing to lifestyle as being involved with health. Over
and over again we find that diet, and particularly lifestyle,
are being connected with health problems. Right now, you are
only 18 kilometres from H-opewood Health Centre, Wallacia, where
CALLER: ( continued)
there is 18 years experience, which is more than any other
place in the country, of a lifestyle approach to health.
The methods here have in fact been observed scientifically,
or the same methods elsewhere have been observed, and yet in
Australia there has been no interest whatsoever at Government
level that I am aware of, taken of this type of approach to
health which is so readily available to be looked at.
What I would like to ask, when is the Government going to do
something positive about looking at lifestyle and preventive
medicine. Prime Minister:
I think the points you make are very real one s they are very
valid ones. The community health programmes that are operating
reasonably well in-some parts of the country but more particularly
in those areas where there wasn't an adequate general practitioner
service are trying to do something about preventive medicine
prepared to accept it if you say not enough but there is a much
greater awareness. I would like to, if I could, maybe you could
give it to the station get the address of the Health Centre that
you are talking about so I could find out more about precisely
what you are doing. I agree that lifestyle, diet and the way
people live, the temper of modern society and the pace of modern
activity, does have an effect on people. Nervous tensions and
all the rest can arise out of these things.
CALLER:
May I quote two examples. One was a guest at Hopewood who went
back to his heart specialist in Melbourne and he-wrote me a letter
and said his heart specialist wanted more details did medical
tests on the gentleman's return and found that cholestoral levels
and blood pressure and the condition of his heart was so much
improved that the specialist words and apparently he is a
leading specialist were that there be more such centres and they
should have Government support. This is really what I am putting
to you.
CALLER: I want to speak to the Prime Minister about my son. Mrs. lEllenyss.
from Penrith. Mr. Fraser, excuse mie calling you Mr. Fraser
the policy was unite the family.
Prime Minister:
Yes of course we do.
CALLER: I have applied twice for my son in India and both times the
thing has been turned down. / 6
6-
Prime Minister:
How old is your son?
CALLER: He is working in the Forest Department, lie is 44.
Prime Minister:
In India?
CALLER:
Yes. He has worked in the Forest Department.
Prime Minister:
How long have you been out here?
CALLER: I'm 18 months here. My son has been here from 173 with
two months staying the eldest boy he has been here from
' 73 and my daughter has been from 1970 she is living in
St. Mary's.
Prime Minister:
What other relatives do you have in India?
CALLER: I've got only two sons.
Prime Minister:
Two more sons in India?
CALLER:
Yes. Prime Minister:
Are they married?
CALLER: Yes. . We are trying for'-is the youngest and he has three
boys and one girl. His eldest is 8 years.
Prime Minister:
At the present moment,-when there is more unemployment than
we want to see in Australia, there are limits on the total
immigration programme and under that, therefore, we have
priorities for certain categories of family reunion, especially
dependents, and also people who have job skills where the skills
are in short supply in Australia. But, without making any
commitment what the outcome will be, again, if I can get your
/ 7
-7
Prime Minister: ( continued)
name and address I will be prepared to follow that up to
see if there is any way in which your son does come within
the guidelines as they are at the moment.
CALLER: I'd like to ask you why, in a time of high unemployment and
when our neighbouring countries are having major skirmishes
on our back door, why doesn't the Government reintroduce
compulsory national service for all 18 year olds, for a
period of say, 6 months?
Prime Minister:
That is a possibility. It would be a very expensive possibility.
When you look a~ t the straight out defence requirements, what
we basically judge as one of the main priorities at the moment
is to get as large a share of the defence vote as possible
into modern and more efficient capital equipment armanents
for the services. A few years ago we were spending less than
five percent on replacement equipment and that is just not
enough. Your equipment wears out. Now we've got it up to
about 13 or 14 percent, but we still believe it needs to be
increased more. Now that means the manpower numbers have been
rising a bit but not all that much, and it also means keeping a
tight rein on the current running costs. It would be possible
to put everyone from the age group into national service
for say six months. It would cost a great deal. There are say
200,000 young people in an age group, and if-they are going to
be in for six months that is, I suppose, 100,000 at a time.
The Army would need to be very substantially expanded for
training and other purposes. This is a very contentious
subject because there are a lot of people who believe as you
do that that kind of service would be very good for many
Australians. There are others who oppose it quite bitterly
as something which they oppose, which they think if authoritarian.
CALLER: I just feel that the money we are putting out in the dole with
these young fellows would be both themselves and our country
would be a lot better off. They would reap a lot of discipline,
which they need, to hold employment.
CALLER: From time to time the subject of compulsory, or elected,
voluntary retirement of public servants at age 55, both male
and female, arises. Is this in fact likely to become a reality?
Prime Minister:
Not compulsory retirement at 55. We do have legislation which
will be presented to the Parliament shortly and that legislation
will make voluntary retirement at 55 a possibility at a slightly
reduced retirement pension, superannuation, but also in some
cases there would be the possibility of management initiating
retirement at the same age. But if it is management initiated
the superaniiuation penalty for going out earlier is not the
same as one would expect. Now, this is something that applies / 8
8-
Prime Minister: ( continued)
to the Commonwealth Public Service. There has been a great
deal of discussion with the Public Service unions about it
over the last couple of years.
CALLER: If it does say, become a reality with Federal Public Servants,*
would it then become a matter of the State decision, or a flow-on
from the Federal Public Service?
Prime Minister:
If it was going to apply to State Public Servants that would
be a State decision, not a decision for us.
CALLER: In the present unemployment situation, I would certainly endorse
such a move, on a voluntary choice basis. I feel for it to
be any other way it would only just more or less shift the social
disadvantage from one age group to another.
Prime Minister:
I don't think you can really compulsorily retire people at that
sort of age. A lot of people want to work beyond the normal
retiring age because they feel fit and that's what they like
doing. It is, in a sense, rather cruel to tell people they
can't work anymore. Also, of course, you've got to look at the
other side the, in part, cost to the community because it is
not always understood that for every thousand taxpayers ten
years ago there were about 160 pensioners.. Now -for that
same thousand taxpayers there are about 270 pensioners, all
getting pensions at a much higher level. That's one of the
reasons why taxes are so high.
CALLER: In the new divorce law that was brought in by the previous
Government, there are many areas that have fallen down badly.
Because there is no fault, many innocent people and children have
been put out of their homes. Others who were fortunate to
keep the family home have to foreg6 maintenance and others
have to sell their homes when the youngest child is 18. In a lot
of cases these people can't re-marry because of the ramifications
arising from these court decisions arid'I would like to know if
the Government intends doing anything to rectify the situation
in that area?
Prime Minister:
I think this is a matter where there are many very divided
opinions. I personally believe, as I think you do from your
question, that the family is a very important and integral part
of the community and community life. The changes in this area
have generally not been regarded as ones for party political
debate. They have been regarded as ones in which individual
members of Parliament, by and large, make up their own minds.
9-
Prime Minister: ( continued)
That being so, it is not so mnuch a matter for one particular
political party to introduce changes because Members vote on
these matters as their own conscience determines.
CALLER: I would like to know why I have to pay provisional
tax when I'm not working for myself.
Prime Minister:
How are you getting paid. What sort of provisional tax
is generally for self-employed.
CALLER: Working on the piece-work wages. Like on piece work. Say,
if I wanted to go onto sub-contract and I wanted to go on
sub-contract,, why should I have to pay provisional. tax?
Prime Minister:
Well, you are not having tax taken out of your wages every
week on the pay as your earn basis.
CALLER:
Don't you actually have to pay double there -like more or
less the double the amount you are paid.-
Prime Minister:
If you are not paying on a weekly basis, as you earn, as you go,
everyone who is not doing that pays provisional tax. That
doesn't any more than really try and put the provisional
taxpayers in the same position as those who pay as they earn
because they pay later. You pay when the financial year is
mostly ended and you are paying, in a sense, for the year before.
Provisional tax is only designed to put people on the same
basis as those who pay on a weekly basis. I think that's fair
enough really. I am a provisional taxpayer myself.
CALLER: I would like to know when the Department of Defence will recognise
the shiftworker in the Forces, for instance, my husband has
been in the Army for 16 years and ten years he has spent working
as a shift worker working approximately 80 hours per week and
receives only about $ 2.50 per hour. To me this doesn't seem fair
and in relation to a fellow who works 8 to 4 and five days a week,
weekends off and etc. and etc.
Prime Minister:
What's his job in defence?
CALLER: He is a military policeman and I just feel that--I have written
10
CALLER: ( continued)
to the Department of Defence, Mr. Killen, and I would like
to know if I write to the Department of course there are
repercussions on my husband. They find out at work and
you know.. . c gets extra duty and etc.
Prime Minister:
When I was Minister to Army an awful lot of people used to
write to me. They really did about a whole host of things.
I would have known more about the details of this when I
was Army Minister, or Defence Minister, and then we established
a committee of inquiry into the pay and conditions of service
of Armed Serviceman and that inquiry reported and was accepted.
Since then there is a I'm not sure of the exact words but
it is an Armed Forces pay tribunal and they determine the
rates of pay and conditions for members of the Armed Forces.
Without going and getting some advice I wouldn't know if the
particular matter that you are talking about has been before
the tribunal or is going to be referred to the tribunal.
But to satisfy myself when I get back to Canberra I'll ask
and find out.
CALLER: I think it's only in general that the pays and-conditions are
done. In this particular unit, I won't mention it, I will write
to you if you would rather and put all the details in the
letter, but their shift is on average 80 hours per week at
work. That is quite a few nights and quite a few weekends and
they get nothing extra for this. They can't get their meals
there.
Prime Minister:
I think you could write to me about that and
CALLER:
Will something be done about it if I do write to you?
Prime Minister:
Well I can at least look into it, but refer to this conversation
to make quite sure that the letter gets to me, because something
between 2,000 and 3,000 letters a week come into my office.
I quite obviously can't read them all-directly., they have * to
be opened and sorted by other people. Just refer to this
conversation and say that I have said to make sure the letter
lands on my desk.
CALLER: Back in 1976, Mr. Fraser, Dillinghams and Murphyores were stopped
from mining and exporting mineral sands from Fraser Island.
When the Dilligham Murphyores group claimed $ 23 million in
compensation, you replied with a take it or leave it offer of
a mere $ 4 million ex gratia. Now this has become a multi-million
dollar dispute of international significance to the Australian
mining industry. Why don't you refer this dispute to arbitration
/ 11
11
CALLER: ( continued)
the advice that you frequently recommend to striking trade
unionists? Prime Minister:
There are a number of reasons. That particular company was
going ahead and mining. They knew that there was a Commonwealth
appointed environmental inquiry. It was a well-based inquiry
and it recommended that mining cease on Fraser Island, which
I suppose there is no need to take it it's Fraser Island
and I'm Fraser but it's got nothing to do with me: Some people
have said in the past that it has so I just make the point.
At the time I think Dillinghams had basically lost their contracts.
They were in a court case, either with a customer or with a
partner, I'm not sure which, and we decided that mining should
cease, following the advice of the environmental inquiry.
The legal advice to the Commonwealth was that there was no
legal liability at all, but we did offer compensation to another
company that was mining, and to Dillinghams, and also to a number
of smaller contractors who were operating I think all of whom
have accepted it. The other company mining in the area
accepted the offer. The offer we made was $ 4 million, after tax,
which something between $ 7 million and $ 8 million before tax.
It was quite a substantial offer. In the United States, for
example, there is no compensation, as I am advised, for costs
put on companies, or problems caused for companies, by
environmental legislation that's what my American friends
tell me. Of course, if Dillinghams, which is a large and
big multinational company, didn't like the offer, they have
always been able to take us to the High Court. That's available
to them. If other companies feel that they have been wronged
by Government or by whatever, that redress is there.
Dillinghams haven't availed themselves of that redress. What they
have done is to try and conduct a press campaign. They have
tried to get support from other people in the industrial and
financial circles, especially overseas. I don't think that's
the right way of going about it. Let me only say when I have
been in the United States and Dillinghams is an American
multinational corporation that whether it has been in New York
or Washington, there has been no financial support from other
corporations or bankers or institutions for their cause, knowing
the facts. John-Howard,, the Treasurer, was over there just a
short while ago and I don't think anyone mentioned the matter
to him. Basically, we have made an offer that we think is a
very fair one $ 4 million after tax, between $ 7 million and
$ 8 million before tax is the equivalent and the other companies
have accepted the offers made on the same basis. Dillingham's
haven't. At any time they could have taken us to the High
Court if they wanted to.
CALLER: I would like to ask two questions if I may. Firstly, the
Telecom charges for the outer Western areas, which includes
Windsor and Penrith and Campelltown these areas you would be
aware of. The previous Minister promised us that these areas
would be included in the metropolitan zone before the next election.
We realised that Mr. Staley is handling this in the best way that
he possible can, but can you tell us what progress has been
made in this issue?
12
P~ rime Minister:
Yes 1 can and there has been more delay than I would have liked
and certainly more delay than Reg Gillard would have like on
this particular issue. When that earlier statement was made
by the former Minister, I think he was thinking of those areas
only and then tying them in with the metropolitan area.
Then when we and Telecom camne to look at this, we felt that there
ought to be a total inquiry into local call access that it
really in a sense isn't fair to all Australia just to make the
decision for one part of Australia which is fairly close to
the metropolitan area of Sydney. There has been an examination
by Telecom of local call access over the whole country and the
last advice I had was that that report ought to be available
for examination by the Minister about the end of March. We are
past the end of March. I haven't actually been told that the
Report is available, but if we haven't got it-now it is certainly
imminent. I know quite well that Mr. Gillard is not going to
let the Minister or me forget the iact and he will be pressing
for decision as soon as we can.
CALLER: That's good news.
CALLER: What are your views on school fees in Government schools?
Prime Minister:
What sort of fees? Fees for general tuition or fees for
special things?
CALLER: Fees for buying equipment and whatever the school feels
is necessary for a quality education.
Prime Minister:
I think it's fair enough if parents make some contribution to
make sure that the education their children is as good as it can
possibly be. An involvement by the community, by parents and
the school, the life and well-being of the school I think is a good
thing. It's not something that should be shut and isolated and
apart from the rest of the community. A financial contribution
can be part of that. Let me also say that schools are much better
funded than they have ever been in the history of Australia and
the equipment in schools is much more than it has ever been.
I was in a primary school sometime ago, and I'm not going to say
where, but even for the five and six year olds it was full of
electronic equipment which was fairly expensive. I must say I
came away with the feeling that more importance was being placed
on equipment and not enough on the quality of teaching. The
most important thing in a school really, is a good teacher. / 13
13
CALLER: I believe legally, we can't insist that their parents pay
fees, is that right?
Prime Minister:.
I would doubt it. The State might try and make it compulsory
because these schools are run by the State. I wouldn't have
thought it could be made compulsory.
CALLER: It's just that we feel that with the non-Government schools
getting aid, using Government funds, they can insist on fees,
but we who are getting less of the Government's finance, cannot
insist that these fees be paid.
Prime Minister:
For Government schools they are totally funded by Government
and the non-Government schools get some support but in terms
of the money spent on non-Government schools,. taxpayers funds,
it's much much smaller than the amount that's spent on
Government schools. In many of the non-Government schools the
resources available to teachers and therefore to the pupils
is much much less than it is in Government schools. There has
been a tremendous improvement in equipment and building of
Government schools over, I suppose, the last fifteen years.
It's real ' ly a transformed scene from what it was certainly
when I went to school.
CALLER: On a recent talk-back programme you stated that were it your
decision, it would not be possible for unions to be heard before
the Arbitration Court whilst they remain on strike. Would you
explain what the Government would need to do to bring this
about; by legislation or even referendum?
Prime Minister:
I'm not too sure that we would have the legislative power to do
this and the Arbitration Commission, as you know,
CALLER: It's independent, yes
Prime Minister:
has got a great deal of independence and it should have
independence. Countries that do have the legal power to impose
wages on people have never been able to do it very successfully
and by and large decisions have to have the support of both
sides. In earlier times the Arbitration Commission itself would
not hear cases if there was a strike involved or if there were
bans involved they would say " look, we will hear the case
as soon as work is proceeding normally". ./ 14
-14
CALLER:
That's as it should be.
Prime Minister:
1 think it's as it should be.
CALLER: There would be a great support for that and if the Government
could get around to it, even if it meant having a referendum,
it should be done.
Prime Minister:
This is one of the things that we are looking at at the moment
and as I think you also know, I said it wasn't in a talk-back
it was in answer to a question in the Parliament that in
relation to a situation such as in the Postal. Commission or
Telecom where when there is an industrial claim people say
" 1well we have some bans and limitations to give teeth to our
claim",. well
CALLER:.
That makes it difficult.
Prime Minister:
It not only makes it difficult, but if people aren't doing the
work which they are paid for, we believe they shouldn't be paid
or that they should be stood down.
CALLER: Quite right.
Prime Minister:
We are agreeing with each other. But I think there is a very
real community interest and the community is always the silent
third party in any industrial dispute. It's time that, I think,
those that are involved in disputes not only thought of the
community but said " look, let's give arbitration a go, let's
trust the umpire for a change and s'ee what the umpire can do
without industrial muscle, without bans and limitations, or strikes",
because we would be a much, much better country if they would.
only accept that.-
CALLER: My name is Mrs. Bligh from Hazelbrook. Mr. Fraser, can you
enlighten me on the following situation please? My son is 18 years
old. He had a good education, but when he left college he was
unable to get employment like many other boys. Ile qualified
for the NEAT scheme, sponsored by your Government, and was selected
to do a computer training course. Hie did this and 15 months
ago he got his diploma as computer programmer. His lecturer
said hie was really brilliant in this field. Despite the face
that he has a diploma for this, also vocational guidance put him
in the top 5 percent of the intelligence bracket, he has
15
CALLER: ( continued)
absolutely been unable to get any sort of employment in this
field at all, because the magic word seems to be experience.
Because lie hasn't got 6-12 months experience in commercial
work he had six months on site training I might mention
and his applications have been rejected. Now with all the
Governmont departments going computerized, surely there should
be a moral obligation to give some opportunity to the young
people to get employment in Government departments. I even
believe the Commonwealth Department doesn't even recognise
that a ( inaud) course, which your Government paid for can
I mention the place where he trained?
Prime Minister:
Yes. CALLER: From the ACIC that's the Advisory Computer Information Centrethey
don't even recognise it when he has been down to get an
interview. I was just wondering why . does such an anomoly
exist and can you suggest any way of overcoming it please?
Prime Minister:
I think the best thing would be if, maybe you could ring-up
this station and give your son' s name and address, the details
of what you have just told me over the airwaves, and I'll look
into it and see what I can do.
CALLER:
Thank you very much indeed, I would greatly appreciate that
because he is really brilliant in this work.
Prime Minister:
You make sure you ring this station what is your name?
CALLER: Bligh my son's name is Martin.
CALLER: I think earlier you spoke to a lady regarding superannuation.
In particular I think at that time you were talking about compulsory
retirement. My question to you relates to the western area in
particular where we have a terrible lot of people in the low-income
area, and superannuation in fact represents quite an attractive
proposition for them in terms of 5 percent contribution by them
and 5 percent empl6yer. Later on I think it is a fact of life
that later on they will be caught with a fixed income which is
subject to inflationary spiral and as a result the superannuation
is a think which helps them later in life in terms of subsidising
their income. My question to you then is, have you considered
a national superannuation scheme. If not, why not? And if you
have,, is it the study you have started? ./ 16
16
Prime Minister;
Oh yes, the study has started. There have expert reports on
these particular matters. There have in the past generally
been, I suppose, two major difficulties in the introduction of
a national superannuation scheme which, like you, I believe is
good in theory, if only w,. e could get it in: one, the cost,
which would be very great it would be a significant increase
in taxes paid by all taxpayers and two, the problem of covering
the self-employed person is also one of some significance.
There are some examinations still going on about this particular
matter but there are very real difficulties.
CALLER: Naturally, with a scheme such as this, you wo-uld expect some
form of contribution by the people themselves. Would you see
a superannuation fund of this nature taking the place of say
pensions and that?
Prime Minister:
I suppose that could be one of the options, but there would be
substantial additional costs. You might still have a position
of some people who through life, for one reason or another,
didn't qualify for a superannuation pension. But it is a complex
matter and one which I don't think any Government, no-Australian
Government,, has so far been able to see its way through.
CALLER: I think you said that a study has been either started or nearing
completion. When is the completion date for that study? Could
you tell me?
Prime Minister:
There are studies that have been completed but they've been
examined within Government departments over recent times but they
haven't yet got in front of the Government itself.
CALLER:
And up to that stage we can expect some sort of public disclosure
of those studies the results?
Prime Minister:
Of the results, yes, certainly.
CALLER: Do you intend proceeding with the voluntary youth community
service scheme?
Prime Minister:
I'm sorry, do we intend to what? / 17
17
CALLER:
Do you intend to carry out the voluntary youth community
support scheme service scheme.
Prime Mini ster:
You are talking about the newv proposal that Mr. Viner announced,
you are not talking about the CYS schemes, community youth
support schemes, are you?
CALLER: I'm talking about VYC the Voluntary Youth Community Service
Scheme. Prime Minister:
There are two programmes that in a sense fit that category.
There is the community youth support schemes which are commonly
known as the CYS schemes and they are funded in a number of
communities. Ian Viner, as the Minister for Employment and
Youth Affairs, is now looking to see whether we can't get a
wider voluntary scheme involving the community. He has been
having, over the last two or three months, extensive discussions
with a number of people and community groups and he will be
reporting to the Government as a result of those examinations.
I certainly hope that it will be possible to introduce some
programmes which will give more opportunitie s to young people
who are not employed.
CALLER: I'm concerned about the defence of Australia. I believe that
we are only paying about 2 1/ 2 percent of the national income
on defence whereas China and Russia are up around 20 percent
and America I believe is about 7 1/ 2 percent. What's the good
of having a good country that we've got, if we can't defend it?
Prime Minister:
We have got quite effective defence forces and we shouldn't
forget that. We've got some very good and very advanced equipments
in the three services, and over the last there years we've been
trying to get a larger share of the, defence vote, which itself
has been increasing, into the purchase of more modern equipment
which is very important for a defence force which inevitably
because of the number of people in Australia, will remain small
in size. Now Mr. Killen in this last week made a statement in
the Parliament which indicated that we've already made decisions
that involve a greater rate of increase in defence spending
than we had in mind at the time of the last Budget. So that
will lead to some greater degree of expansion and we are
increasing the proportion of the vote spent on new equipment.
I think your percentages aren't quite right. The Soviet Union
spends about 12% to 13%, which is certainly very high.
The Americans, you were right about 6% or 7% I don't know
the Chinese percentage. The armaments that would concern us
most of course would be the buildup of Soviet arms because it
./ 18
18-
Prime Miniister:( continued)
is so substantial, with naval forces that can reach anywhere.
It is not just an Australian concern. All the western European
Governments have expressed concern in exactly the same terms.
But Australia ( inaudible) by herself, with 14 million people,
is never going to be able to have a defence force that could
stand against the might of a major power or a super power.
Thercifure, we have a system,, of alliances the ANZUS Treat)'
with the United States. That doesn't take away from us the
responsibility of what we can and should and must on our
own account. I agree with you, we do need substantial and
significant defence forces.
CALLER:
Mr. Fraser. This is not a very important thing, I suppose,
but why has the country changed to metrics?
Prime Minister:
We changed to metrics I sometimes, with the fuss that has
gone on wonder whether I did the right thing, but years ag o
I had the original submission to Cabinet suggesting the change
to metrics. I didn't carry it at the time. The next Minister
for Education and Science did.
CALLER:
You didn't do it though?
Prime Minister:
I brought in a submission to Cabinet and it got defeated, but.
my successor was more successful. He brought in another submission
and was successful. The reasons is a simple one. Most of our
markets overseas, the countries from whom ' we are buying equipment,
and to whom we are selling things, operate. on the metric system.
Now, if we want our manufacturers to well, it helps if they
are producing in metrics because then it goes to a country where
metric is the standard measurement and it makes it easier. Take a
mechanic in a garage where he is operating on cars. If all the
cars are metric he needs one set of spanners which does everything,
but if hie's got British standards and American fine and metrics
and I think there are some other measurements as well SAE then
he needs a different set of spanners for the lot and it becomes
inefficient and more expensive. Now, I know there are some things
about metrics that people don't like. If you are used to buying
a pound of beef, you want to be able to go on buying a pound of
beef. You don't necessarily want to have to buy a kilo of beef if
you are not sure what thiat -is.
CALLER: I still don't.
Prime Minister:
I'm not either, I can promise you. I don't know what a kilometre
is. I know what a mile is. The kids are all being taught
metrics at school. / 19
19
CALLER: Not very well, sir.
Prime Minister:
Well, miay be not as wvell, but they are unot being taught feet
and inches at all. So, through the passage of time, everyone
will, I suppose, be more used to metrics and you and I won't
be here with our memories of the older system. We are looking
at some aspects of the compulsory elements which seem to be
around at the moment which suggest that is wrong for somebody
to sell you a pound of beef or a pound of bread or however
bread is measured, because that just seems to me to be quite
unnecessary. That aspect is being looked at.
CALLER: I want to speak to you about the state of the nation and I
am referring to the Income Tax Assessment Act No. 1, 1979.
This hits out unintentionally on a wide range of legitimate
business dealings which have nothing to do with tax avoidance.
The Act defines tax avoidance so widely that even paying wages
could be called a tax scheme. What I wanted to ask you was that
would Parliament reconsider having another look at this amendment
act, considering income tax, because it affects every business
house in Australia.
Prime Minister:
Two things; I don't carry the precise memoi-y and details
of the particular part of the Act that you are concerned about
in your mind, so I would be grateful if you could do what
other people have done on this programme and ring in to the
station. Give me your details, your name and address and I will
look at the details for you. We don't want positions that put
unreal or unnecessary difficulties in the way of business.
But at the same time we have been very very concerned about
tax avoidance which has become a massive industry. I believe
that some elements of the legal and accounting profession are
really not acting in the best interests of the -reputation of
their professions in promoting schemes which have cost taxpayers
over the years hundreds of millions of dollars. That means
everyone, to make up for
CALLER: I know that the Government was very concerned over the current
scheme and..
Prime Minister:
That's the sort of thing that can cost hundreds of millions of
dollars and as a result of that everyone pays higher taxes because
you lose out from a few wh...
CALLER: But this particular piece of legislation is pretty dangerous
in the fact that the law should be clear enough to create an
CALLER: ( continued)
atmosphere of certainty in which busincss can operated, but
this piece of legislation is so wide that it reminds me of
when I was in the forces, under Section 39A of the
( Interrupted by comrpere of show)
CALLER: I would like to ask your opinion on what you intend to do
about abuses of the current unemployment schemes,, such as
the NEAT scheme in particular.
Prime Minister:
Do you have particular abuses in mind?
CALLER: Yes I do. The NEAT scheme runs for a poriod of about 17 weeks
and I know of several instances where people have been employed
for those 17 weeks under the thought that they are going to get
a job at the end of that time, but at the end of that time they
have just been given the sack.
Prime Minister;
Under the NEAT scheme and under the that's training on the
job? CALLER:
That's right.
Prime Minister;
If there are employers who have become known to the Department
for taking people under the NEAT scheme or under the Special
Youth Employment Training Scheme, which is designed to help
young people with some training for the same purpose but over
a shorter geriod, if we find people who are just taking them
for the period that is subsidised and then don't keep them on
in employment, well then they just wouldn't be eligible for
more people in the future wider the programmes.
CALLER: liable for any sort of prosecutions?
Prime Minister:
I don't think they are liable for prosecution but they wouldn't
be eligible for anyone else under the programmes. Our only
problem is to identify the employers who do that.
CALLER: Who can we report these employers to, because I do know of some
who~~ hav dneit
-21
Prime Minister;
You could report to Reg Cillard, you could report it to the
Department the Commonwealth Employment Service.
CALLER: There have been many questions lately about taxing company
profits and this money then being taxed as income for
individuals. There have also been many questions about foreign
equity of companies and repatriation of large profits overseas.
Why can't a tax policy be introduced along these lines
say a company is 50 percent foreign-owned and makes $ 100 million
profit. The $ 50 million going to Australians would not be
taxed at the company level. The money that leaves the country
would be taxed along the following lines: a flat rate because
it is foreign-owned; extra on a progressive-scale of tax based
on the amount repatriated and finally a surcharge for the
profitability of the company on the amount invested. This would
encourage Australians to buy shares in local companies and help
increase local equity. The Government would benefit because people
would take risks, employ people, with a resulting increase in
demand for goods and services and give the economy a general shot
in the arm. Multiply ( inaudible) would then take effect. The
balance of payments problems wvould ease up
Wouldn't this benefit the economy generally?
Prime Minister:
I , think these are complex matters but one of the things that
we do believe we need to do and that is to tax all companies
on a fair and equitable basis; the same sorts of rules for
all whether they are Australian or foreign companies.
000