PM Transcripts

Transcripts from the Prime Ministers of Australia

Fraser, Malcolm

Period of Service: 11/11/1975 - 11/03/1983
Release Date:
19/03/1980
Release Type:
Interview
Transcript ID:
5300
Document:
00005300.pdf 4 Page(s)
Released by:
  • Fraser, John Malcolm
PRIME MINISTER INTERVIEWED BY NEIL ADCOCK, 6PR, PERTH, TELEPHONE INTERVIEW

PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT WEDNESDAY, 19 MARCH, 1980
PRIME MINISTER INTERVIEWED BY NEIL ADCOCK, 6PR, PERTH
TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
( QUESTIONS NOT AUDIBLE)
Question Prime Minister
( Inaudible) problem can be undertaken and pursued on a national
basis. The arrangements that we are making for co-operation
with the States, the arrangements that we are making in the
crime area for intelligence centres and all the rest it is
setting this basic approach on a national level that really is
the important thing. We are going to pursue that with all the
vigour at our command. I would believe the State Governments
will also._-
Q uestion
Prime Minister
We have not got a costing on any of it yet. But, it is our
intention to make it effective. It is too important. The
problem of drugs is a threat to the kind of society we have
and want to have. Governments, individuals, families, cannot
be complacent about it. If there is a cost to combatting it
properly, then Governments are going to have to meet that.
Question Prime Minister
I think much more so now than might have been 15 or 20 years ago.
I believe there is better education in the schools of the dangers
and drug education for kids. I think parents are-aware of it,
although there is often an attitude it can happen, but it will
not happen in my family. I have known of tragic circumstances
where parents have come to realise that their children are
addicts, months or even years after the problem started. It is
very tragic to see that happening. It needs to be treated as
a very real danger. Parents need to stay as close as possible
to their own kids to minimise the possibility of that sort of
thing happening.
Question

6-P-2 -
Prime Minister-
When you are -linking alcohol with road accidents and this sort
of thing, governments are now-generally taking a much tougher
attitude to it. I am all for that. I think Australia has been
behind some other countries in the toughness of its laws in
relation to alcohol and driving. I am very glad to see that we
are now catching-up and that the penalties are very severe; and
they ought to be.
Question Prime Minister-
Well, the Government did take some decisions about that report
that are going to be announced very shortly. I think describing
Australia as an intoxicated society is really a bit hard.
Most Australians are not intoxicated and go about their business
and can take alcohol within proper limits and all the rest.
So we need -to understand that while it is a danger, it is a danger
for young people, it is a very real danger for a minority that
cannot handle maybe not so much the problems of alcohol as the
problems and difficulties that sometimes beset individuals in
a modern society.,-Therefore, they start by going to an escape.
We have to address ourselves to these particular directions.
I am just putting in a defence for an Australian society which by
and large I think is a pretty good one and a pretty healthy one.
Question Prime Minister-
We can pursue it, and if necessary we will. In addition to thiat
of course there are other elements in this particular case in
which it now appears, well, we now, that under the auspices of
the. Arbitration Commission the company and the union came to an
agreement in the absence of the small firm, in the absence of
Mr. Laidely, which disposed of Mr. Laidely; denied him any rights
to live, to survive, to work. We are looking at that very seriously
indeed. That could well lead to amendments of the Trade Practices
Act itself because we need to understand that on the question of
refusal to supply a product to an individual or a company, that
can be done if the refusal to supply is the individual action of
a particular company. But if two companies agree to refuse to
supply a product to a third party that would be against the Act.
Here we h-ave a situation in-which it seems that AMOCO and a trade
union have refused to supply. The question is whether that ought
not to be an offence against the Trade Practices Act. We
are looking at that very closely. Discussions have been takingplace
last night and this morning. The Government is talking to
oil company representatives this afternoon. While I do not see
any quick solution to the totality of the problem I am hoping / 3
6PR

6PR -3-
Prime Minister ( continued)
that shortly the Government will be in a position to announce
some initiatives in relation'to it.
Question Prime Minister
There has been no response yet. They use Cockburn Sound
occasionally for ships.-they have gone into harbours in
Western Australia. This was a question of home porting, or
base porting units that could be patrolling in the Indian Ocean
over very, very long periods. If it is home porting, it would
mean that families would also be going to live in the area.
We said that if the United States wants to pursue this, as one
of its options in upgrading its own military forces in the
Indian Ocean area, then we will be very ready to listen to a
proposition that they have put to us. It has not got any further
than that yet. The United States has not yet come back to us
in relation to it. Personally, I hope they do.
Question Prime Minister
Two-fold. If wehave a defence alliance and if we believe in
a common cause, we have to do something to defend it. It is not
very good saying we are prepared to be defended but only by
second-grade or outdated weapons. That would not make very much
sense. I think people have to make up their minds in the widest
sense what side they are on. There is no dotibt about Australia
in my view. There is certainly no doubt about the Government
and the great majority of the Australian people. Therefore, if
we believe in a cause, we have to support it. I think it is
worth noting that nearly all the countries of Europe, the
United Kingdom, have facilities within them. They are nuclear
facilities. We have not had such facilities in Australia.
Facilities of that kind are not proposed. what is proposed
is that ships might be able, if the Americans want-to respond to
it, to use bases that we already have for home porting, or base
porting as they call it as the Americans call it. If they
want that, in terms of general free-world co-operation, I
believe we should assist them to if we can.
Question Prime Minister
I have not got a response to that yet. We have of course
significantly upgraded general defences in Western Australia as
a result of a statement made a month ago. That is going to mean

6PR 4
Prime Minister ( continued)
considerable improvements to facilities. It is going to mean
home porting of our own ships-at Cockburn Sound before the
end of the current defence period; the upgrading of Cockburn
Sound and of Learmonth, and of other facilities in Western
Australia. On a State-by-State basis, I think Western Australia
might have come out of the new decisions of the Government
with a greater upgrading of defence capacity than any other State.
Question Prime Minister
Well, that is better not done by helicopters. I think that is
better done by the fixed-wing aircraft. Over the last 18 months
we have established much better surveillance right around the
Australian coastline for that very purpose. I think those
arrangements are working quite well.
000---

5300