: JL
TRANSCRIPT PRIME MINISTER WITH JEREMIY COHDEAJX, RADIO STATION 5DN ADELAIDE
WEDNESDAY, 27 NOVEMIBER, 1985
Cordeaux: What do you think of the approval ratings In the Bulletin today?
John Howard slumping by Was that a surprise?
PM: Well It's pretty hard to be objective in these things
Jeremy, but I can say it Is not a surpri~ se because the perf'ormance of the
current leader of the Opposition in Parliament since he's been there have
been pathetiC and he has been part of an opposition now which has degeneraLed
Into the worst factional fighting seen In any party in Australia at the
Federal level I think for 30 years or more.
Cordeaux: I mean a surprise to the extent that the interest rates
In Australia are so high, most people with a mortgage you've got to cop that.
? tM: Well you see Jeremy, the Interesting thing about the people
of Australia is that they have the capacity of looking at things on the
whole, they understand that we are now in our 3rd year of growth, the economy
Is growing, we've got record rates of employment growth and we're in a
situation where there's external pressures on our dollar and It's been
necessary to firm up monetary policy to protect the dollar we've d9ne
that and good old Mr and Mrs Australia out there, they haven't got their
economic degrees and so on, but they have a pretty sensible understanding
of the totality of what's going on, and they like It.
C: But I was just thInking If you were In opposition, you would
be bucketing the [ Liberal Party, If they were In government, you would be
puttin% In the~ buoLts.
PM: That's like saying If your Aunt had a different anatomical
construction she'd be you Uncle, I mean that's nonsense because when we
were in Opposition we were able to attack the government because they were
producing the worst economic recession In the history of this country
well since 1929. Now that's the reality and we were able effectively to
attack and when I became leader I was able to, with my colleagues, knock
them over because what they were doing economically was appalling, they're
not able to do it now because what we're doing Is to turn the economy around.
We've got record rates of growth, record rates of employment growth, so
to say ' if' the roles were reversed is nonsense.
C: Put It this way, they are not making the most of the situation
with regard to the Interest rates and the value well what's happening
to the Australian dollar?
.2/
PM: The Australian dollar is firming up, it's now I haven't
seen this mornings rates, but yesterday It was back up to 69, it had been
down 30 or so below that, its coming up and Its coming up, In response to
our policies. If you have to have a firm monetary policy which means higher
interest rates to protect your dollar and In the process your dollar comea
back up again, that shows that your policies are being effective. Now what
I'm sayIng which, with respect~ you're not grasping Imediately, Is that
the Australian people, your audience, are able to understand that when yu
make a Judgment about a total Australian economy you look at all the factorb,
and you look at the factors which mean that we are now going into our third
year under thIs government at 516 economic growth, which has -meant the highest
rate of employment growth in this country that means that their kids,
the kids of your listeners are now getting the opportunity at Jobu that
they didn't have before and that they're doing this within containable levels
of Inflation and they're seeing Improvements In the education system, they
are seeing the situation where the rest of the world is saying, look, Australia
Is doing brilliantly we've had the head of the OECD, the International
organisation, out here and referring to our policies saying the outcomes
are brilliant. Now they have the capacity, your ordinary listeners, as
well as the specialist commentators come out here and look at Australia
as a whole and say, this Is a brilliant performance.
C: Would you say that the Australian dollar's performance is
brilliant and surely that has got to be a vote of International no confidence
In your government.
PM: Well Jeremy I'm sorry I haven't got the'time to give you
a sort of outline of what economics Is about, but If you say that the decline
in the dollar Is a vote of International conriderice Ini Lhe government,
wP11 C: No-confidence in the government I said.
PM: Well a vote of no-confidence In the government well that
means . what does that mean, that in the last week they'Ive now voted in
confidence because It has gone up. Look, I'm sorry we have to have
C: Well give me a quick lesson
PM: I think that Is a bit what the situation In regard
to the dollar is t~ hat we, when we came in In 1983, said we were going to
abandon what had been a Fixed exchange rate, that meant that the authorities
flad to come In and operate on the money market to maintain the exc. hange
rate at the level that it had been fixed by the authorities. Now we aid
that is silly, It's best to have a floating exchange rate where the market,
the operators In the market, exporters Importers speculators if you like,
have not got to operate against the government, they've got to operate against
one another. Now we had a situation there where the current account balancesi
of Australia had over a period or time, we believe, built up in an unsatisfactory
way against us because of a previous over valuing of the dollar under previous
governments, a situation where the structure o1' our Industry hadn't been
competitive and when * the market forces were then left free to make Judgmien~ t
they brought the value of the dollar down for those reasons.
.3/
3. C: So that was Inevitable?
PM4: Once you free the dollar up, once you float a dollar, volatility
is Inevitable. Now wait a minute. If you want to raise an Intricate subject
dont delude yourself, if you raise an Intricate subject that you can have
an answer that occupies 30 seconds I mean It's your idea to say that you
want a lesson on one of the most Intricate subjects in the world, and then
you want a 30 second edition.
C: Let me just say this. When people see their mortgage ratea
going up and up and up, I mean basically people probably don't want a lesson
In economics, they just want to understan( J why It's happerning arid Is it
going to 3top.
PM: Let me say this to you. I explained as there was pressure
on the dollar and it went downwards, we didn't want the dollar to just be
going down in free fall. Therefore, It was necessary to firm up monetary
policy, that made your Interest rates go up, it made the Australian
having Australian holdings more attractive and In the event with this tightenlig
up of monetary policy, that has halted the decline that was taking place
In the dollar. We thought It had gone too far. Now you do that to achieve
the purpose or maintaining the exchange rate at a level that is not going
down too low. That has been achieved. Part of the process what did
you say?
C: Wouldn't you say It Is too low now?
PM: Of course you wouldn't say it was too low now.
C: Well what is acceptable
PM: Look If you wanted to sayY0 m, g) ori ng to have a particular
level and that's the acceptable level, you don't float the exchange rate
and you Impose all the additional pressures on Intereut rates. I mean the
proposition that you would by saying look we'll pick out let's say for example,
740, for some magical unexplained reason 740 Is the rate at which we will
hold it now if we're going to do that, In a non-floating situation, the
pressures on your interest rates would be enormous because the government
wouid then De in having to manipulate the money markets In a way which you'd
have to push Interest rates up far beyond where they are now, and you would
really have people complaining about the-levels of Interest rates.
C: Just tell the average Australian mortgage holder whether
Interest rates In your opinion are going to remain fairly * tatñ c" the
way they are, they're going to come down, they're going to go up, make A
forecast for me.
PM: No I will not make a forecast for you and you're totally
irresponsibie in asking the Prime Minister or a Treasurer In a fairly volatile
situation to say that. I mean Its the height of Irresponsibility, I mean
you really ought to know better than that, because If the Prime Miniater
or the Treasurer were to say, look Interest rates tire going to move this
way at such and such a tIme, that of Itself becomes a factor in the Market,
and you really ought to know that it's both irresponsible for you tW ask
and you certainly ought to know me well enough, to know that I wouldn't
do It. What 1 will say Is this, to the people of South Australia who have
some interest in this matter at the moment that If they had the misfortune
to have the Liberals in this situation, Mr Howard is saying that he would
lift the interest rate ceiling which we've got on mortgage rates, they would
be paying with every increase of 1% in the housing mortgage rate, would
be another $ 30 a month, that's what Mr Howard says ought to happen he
believes that you ought to lift that, of course Lhere is a vast confusion
difference and confrontation between Mr Olsen and Mr Howard because Mr Olsen
says, no no no, you shouldn't do that, so depending on which Liberal they
believe, they could be facing a very, very much higher burden of interest
rates in this country than they are under this government which has said
while we will have a firm monetary policy as Is appropriate In the circumstances
and which I believe is generally judged to be appropriate in regard to housing
interest rates we're not going to lift that ceiling.
C: One of the things that the Liberals here have said is that
they would like people to own their own housing trust homes, and it has
now been said that's illegal, that's not on. I understand that when
John Olsen first floated this Idea, he said okay well that agreement is
going to have to be renegotiated to accommodate that, legally. Well why
not use this as a test case and try to provide trust renters with ownership
right across Australia.
PM: Minds greater than Mr Olsen's, have been dealing with this
subject for a fair while1including people of his own political persuasion,
The Commonwealth State Housing Agreement is the product of negotiations
between the Commonwealth and all State Governments, including the Queensland
State Government National Party and the Liberal Party in Tasmania, Mr Grey's
government, and this has been negotiated and signed, it's a legally binding
document, across the political spectrum because it is recognised as being
the most appropriate way in which funds can be channelled from the Commonwealth
into the States to ensure that you provide the maximum amount that is
economically possible into low cost public housing. I think it is worth
raising the question, If so many minds right across the political spectrum
have worked out that this is the best way of handling this matter and have
signed a legally binding agreement, just a reasonable question, do you think
Mr Olsen in the desperation of a political campaign in South Australia is
more likely to know best, or is it not the case that this is another example
of the opportunism of Mr Olsen who some five weeks ago described as outrageous
outrageous he said and moved an urgency motion in the House against Mr Bannon's
interest subsidy plan, and now has jumped around and said no no, that's
the right thing to do. Now this man of opportunism who really doesn't bring
to bear a historically vast knowledge of matters economic is it likely
he is going to know best on this.
C: Well would you preclude anybody, any one single person
coming up with an idea that will make thesystem better?
PM: No I wouldn't. What I do say is that we draw upon the best
knowledge that there is, not only in the Commonwealth but in the States
and across the political spectrum in a context where people aren't fighting
a desperate political campaign and devoting themselves to the issue. I'm
saying that Mr Olsen has discredited himself as a serious operator in this
area a man who gets up 5 weeks ago and says that something to do with
housing is outrageous and 5 weeks later as a matter of political expediency
says no, that's a good idea, you don't Lake him seriously.
.7IG7 i0!
i MIN' 05i
C: But you can see somebody saying to himself, well why would
Mr Hawke or Mr B~ annon or a La3bor Government stand between me and owning
this house at a discounted price. If you've got to renegotiate the agreement,
rene~ otiate it.
PM: In the renegotiation of the Agreement what would nappen
i3 tUaL the~ flow of funds upon which the whole operation Is predicated between
Commonwealth and States would be Interrupted if you have now a ' entirely
new concept introduced. If you'd like, let me say, to have Mr Olsen explain
why hi~ s predecessors In governmento or his political persuasion, and the
people or the same political persuasion in the other states have in fact
operated under this system for so long and why It Is just now, why is It
just now in this political campaign where he switches and changes and does
everything that Is oportunistic that he's hit on something that Is right
and better which has never been accepted by any of his polItical colleagues
before. Ask him that, why has It just happened now.
C: If It's a good Idea let's do It. Liberal or Labor, If it
is good for people In homes and lets them Into home ownership, why for political
reasons knock the idea.
PM: It is not a question or letting In the home ownership, under
the agreements now, there are provisions for people being able to acquire
homes at the market rate if you
C: Why not at better than market rate?
PH: Because you are having a totally artificial what you
are saying is that you're going to be able to buy a discounted operation
Interfere with the forces of the market through such an agreement that Is
operated so. It is just a non again, If you want to have a long dissertation,
on the housing economics, we can have it If you like,..
C: But surely Prime Minister, the economies of scale the way
public Dousing Is built, the economies of scale automatically mean that
people should be able to buy those houses cheaper.
PM: It's not a question by Introducing discounting values for
housing built under this scheme, that's got nothing to do with the economies
of scale, the purposes of the Commonwealth Housing Agreement are to funnel
funds between the Commonwealth and the States in a way In which ensures
that there Is a given amount which Is about a 50% increase under my Government
I might say, over what was there before under the Liberals, an increase
in funds to be allocated to public housing. You don't you're not really
deluding yourself out by them coming Into that and saying, now we'll introducV
into that a discounted rate of selling to tenants, that that does 3omethlng7
about increasing the volume of the houses available are you?
C: No. I'm saying public housing will be cheaper, therefore
that cost saving could be passed onto PF-0: piecLive buyers.
.6/
PM: But it is reflected. It you are operating now through the
various state housing commission systems as you do, with the Commonwealth,
you are In fact getting to low Income people the benefits of that special
provision of funding as it Is. They are going to be able to rent the houses
cheaper than they would otherwise be able to do. You are then Introducing
an entirely new concept if you're going to say now we're going to discount
the sale price, you're going to be doing that, you're going to be introducing
another element into public funding which means you're going to have less
funds available for other social priority purposes. This proposition Jeremy,
that ' oh yes, we'll do that', you've got an Inexhaustable public bucket
of money, 1 would have thought you and certainly Mr Olsen, If he knows anything
abouL public finance would know It's stupid. If you that, If you're going
to cut revenue by introducing another element there, that's less you've
got to do something else. You're suggesting that if he does that, if he
introduces the1d0iscount, does this, reduces the funds available, that he's
still going tooeverything else In the social welfare area because If he's
going to, that means he's got to increase his taxes, money doesn't grow
on trees, if he reduces the amount of money available to him by doing that,
tLhe hie's got to cut out on something else or increase taxes, and that's
a simple political arithmetic of it.
Caller: Mr Hawke, I would like to know your policy on small business.
We own a small business in partnership and we're having quite a bit of trouble
with discrimination agalnst us with multi-nationals.
PM; Can you give me some details of this discrimination?
Caller: They & et benefits that we can't get.
PM: What's the business, and what are the benefits. They are
11oL poInt. ess questions I'm putting to you because they may well be illegal
under the Trade Practices Act, so if you-can give me the details of those
discriminations that you're experiencing I could take them down and see
whether in fact they are against the provisions of the Trade Practices Act.
Caller: We own a small waste disposal business and a lot of the
multi-natlonals have got keys there Is only one main tipping area In
Adelaide, and a lot of mu) tl-nationals can get keys to the dump where we
can't, for dumping after hours. Now If one of our customers ring up and
want dumping done that night if there Is a fire or something like that,
we can't get into the dump to do so, whereas the multi-nationals can.
PM: Who are the multi-nationals that you're talking about?
Caller: I would rather not say because there's only one dump and
we could be discrJminated against even more.
PM: I'm just rather interested to know that in the waste disposal
business in Adelaide that multi-nationals are operating.
Caller: There are, quite a few.
PM: Nobody knows who you are, can you tell me wno the multinationals
are that are operating In waste dumping.
Caller: I'd rather not say.
' 54/
7. C: Naming the company is not going to& anything other than just
give the PM some more informiation.
PM: If you've got a real problem, I need to know the facts and
I know you're talking about waste disposal and that there are multi-nationals
who can get keys that you can't. Now If you can tell me who these muitinationals
are, well we might be able to see if something Illegal Is happening.
Caller: Well it Is Cleanaway that runs the dump Cleanaway, belongs
to Brambles, I'm not sure and then there Is another one that belongs to
I can't think who they belong to but they belong to multi-nationals.
PM: If you were to write into Jeremy and give Jeremy the details
of what you're talking about, and the companies that are Involved in the
practice, I could undertake 1 would have the Issue referred to our relevant
sections of the department which deal with the Trade Practices provision and
the supervision of proper competitive practices and i1r In fact, there's
something being done that constitutes Improper trading practices, then we'll
see what we can do to help. I think you'll appreciate we need to have more
dctaI13. C: Quickly before I take another call PM, what's your reaction
* to the ACTU dumping of the BLF, what do think Is going to happen to the
union now?
PM: Well I welcome unreservedly the decision of the ACTU, it's
the right decision, these people for some period of time the BLF have disqualified
themselves T believe, from membership or the great tradition
of Australian trade unionism and now I think that before I go on to
say that, you must appreciate there Is a case before the Arbitration Commission
where we're seeking the declaration from the Commission for the next step
that when we as a government can then deregister, what thIs meis Is that
if that process goes ahead, and I say the ' if' depends not on our Intention
we have to wait for the declaration from the Conunisslon, we will immediately
move If that declaration is given as 1 believe it will that means that
other unions will be then free to pick up people on the sites and enrol
them in their unions. Now it's time, and that's why we passed the legislation,
it's time that the Australian community Is cleansed from the thuggery and
the evil of the BLF.
C: And it is a clear warning I take It that you are sounding
to other unions, that there are rules and there are ways and means, legal
ways. PM: Let's be fair to the rest of the trade union movement.
There Is no other union like the BLF.
Cal~ ler: I would like the government to take some pressureoff pensioner's
who are trying to save money to buy a home, we are in housing trust, as
1 heard you talking about housing trust homes awhile ago, we don't necessarily
want to buy a housing trust ho~ e, but we would like to one day have a home
of own. But the system is so that pensioners who earn money when they're
working can only have up $ 20 a week extra coming In on top of their pension.
I don't think it is very fair because we have rio aasets, no caravan, no
boat, and we are trying to keep our head above water and we're just getting
pushed into the gutter all the time because afterall, the money that we
earnt when we're working, we're entitled to have, and we definitely can't
save on pensions. My parents being older are entitled to pensions, to age
pensions. : 7 e
PM1: Ruth, you would have noticed In the recent announcements
that have been made by the Treasurer in regard to the whole tax package
there have been significant Increases in the what had previously been
there allowed as additional elements before you sacrificed part or your
pension, and that was a deliberate reform or the tax package to increase
the amounts of eligible income that social welfare beneficiaries could receive,
it's to remove or substantially reduce what In the language of the social
welfare industries call poverty traps, and that was I must say has been
very warmly welcomed by workers In the social welfare because they recognise
these sort or problems that you are referring to, that there was very great
difficulties for people who were on pensions or social welfare, they earnt
a little bit of extra Income and they could run Into marginal tax rates
of 100% or more. And so that's why wc have increased the amounts In this
announcement by the Treasurer to goa considerable way to try a meet thils
sort of problem that you're talking abou.
C: PM, a lot has been made in the lead-up, well In the election
campaign, the advertising, about you elect a Liberal government and the
Labor government in Canberra Is not going to smile too kdndly upon your attempts
as a Liberal government to get the submarine contract. You have, and I'm
quoting from a telex now, that the Prime Minister has given a further
assurance that decisions about the submarine project would be made only
on the merits of the case presented by each state, and would have nothing
to do with the politics Involved. Would you like to develop that a little
bit? PM1: Well all our decisions are made on merits, what I have said
In regard to S. A. IS this. That S. A. Is really only In the' ring as a result
of the efforts of one man, and that's Mr Bannon who virtually single handedly
has mounted a campaign, and a very impressive campaign, to put before the
Federal Government the merits and virtues or the South Australian case for
a major place in the Australian construction or our next submarines. He t
has acquainted himself with the technicalities of this issue in an absolutely
outstanding way, he's acquainted himself with the capacities of S. A. to
do the job, Internationally he's undertaking a study of what's Involved,
and if it were not for John Bannon, South Australia would not be up at the
starters gun if I can use the language of the Grand Prix now let me
finish. Now what I'm saying is, that he is better equiped than anyone to I.
put the case and South Australia is up there and In the ring because of
him, and he has a capacity on the issue, an access to us which is secorid
to none, and when the project definition studies are completed that's
the phase we're In now then SA will be very, very well placed to be
considered on Its merits and It will be that much better placed becauseV
of the work of John Bannon in given the experj~ nce he's acquired, obviously
a continuity of representation is going to be~ zouth Australia's benefit.
C: But If you say the only consideration will be on the merits,
you really do take It that they're clearly out of the political arena,
regardless of the sentiment involved.
PM: Merits are there, facts exist, and the facts have 1o be
communicated, there has to be a constant puLIng or fat
C: You mean a Liberal government couldn't put those facts as
effectively. PM: I'm saying they have not to this point, involved themselves
obviously as a Premier Is going to do, but I'm saying he's done it
outstandingly well, he's Involved himself and he's Impressed everyone with
whom he's dealt. Mr Beazley, myselr and those who have to deal with decisions
on the merits have been outstandingly Impressed In the way In which
Mr Bannon has assembled the case, has brought the racts together, 5o that
we now have an opportunity or looking at this Issue In the light of the
assembled facts. Now we're going to have to do that against the background
as I say of the project definition study, which is being under-Luken at this
time and you can't make a decision In advance of that. But no state could
be better placed to have its factual case considered when those project
definition studies are completed than could SA as a result of the work or
Mr Bannon.
Caller: I'm one of those very disillusioned with the government.
When the next election comes up I don't think I will vote one way or the
other because I spoke to Jeremy yesterday and I said nobody gives a damn
about us. Well the point Is, I'm on a pension, I have been for uume year-so
and T was able to retain a job for a couple of months, a very menial position,
and I have to walk ten minutes to the bus each morning In the dark, I was
allowed to earn $ 1500, and they took $ 256 tax which left me $ 1100 or something,
It still wasn't the $ 1500 but that was my gross, so I gave that up and then
I thought I would Set the $ 256 back but not only did they take that but
they sent me account for another $ 75. It's just too much isn't it*.
PM: Well I've just answered a previous question on this, In
this sort of area. The facts are these that in the overall review we
are doing of tax and the relation between tax and social welfare benefits,
that we have done two things, made two decisions which are relevant to what
you are talking about. Firstly, that we are increasing the amounts that
can be earnt so that you don't get the Impact of what we call these poverty
traps where you get very MIgh marginal rates of tax being imposed as you
earn these amounts beyond your pension; and secondly, that we are Increasing,
reasonable substantially, the tax threshold below which you won't pay arty
tax at all, so that you'll find as these changes come In as part of the
overall tax package, the situation that you are talking about, will be quite
significantly improved.
C: You can see where May, $ 75 from a lady who gets up 6 o'clock
In the morning to go and get a few extra dollars, there are people who are
making millions and getting away with blue murder.
PM: And I understand that where we moved to ensure greater equity
In the whole area of pensions by ensuring that those who had millions or
dollars of assets weren't getting the pension. So that people like May,
they could get more. We received from a number of people Including a lot
of misguided people, opposition because we were directly attacking that
sort of an equity. The point that May goes to is a relevant one, and I
remind her that the basic taxation system which operates Ii this country that
has been built up over the last 36 years about 31 of thout have been
Liberal governments, they've established the basic framework in thI3 country,
and we're now gradually being able to bring more equity into It, and that's
precisely what we're about in these changes that I have just referred to
that we will reduce those poverty traps that I referred to and Unait are
M% WPJFPTA7TMQ r7'. 1
afrecting May, and increase the threshold Delow which people will not be
payin8 tax.
Caller: PM I would like to ask what your government Is planning
to do about those young people who are not going to be taken up by traineeships
In 1985/ 86 and beyond. Now given that your government is looking at
creating 10,000 tralneeships for young people who are severely disadvantaged
In the employment market, as a youth worker I work with young people who
probably are not going to get a look in on the traineeships because they're
so severely disadvantaged in terms or their employability, that they really
aren't looked at by employers In any way that is favourable at all. In
this state In 1985/ 86, the service provision for young people under the
community support scheme will be reduced from anything from 20-100% in individual
projects. I would ike to hear what you have to say about funding for
CYSS programs, particularly in this state, but throughout Australia.
PM1: Well 1 have to put It In national terms and what applies
nationally will be reflected proportionately here in SA. But what we've
done Is we've received a great deal of approbative comment from people In
the CYSS, not only to substantla l~ y increase funds but we've put them on
longer term funding Oasis so that the problem that existed In the past,
which I certainly was concerned about, has been substantially reduced
that is that they got funding for a twelve month period, they had no
certainty as to whether that was going on and that made planning difficult
and of course great uncertainty In terms of the people to be benefited
from the operation of CYSS schemes. Now the funding has been put onto
a longer, I think 3 year basis, so that CYS5 projects will have that very
substantial uncertainty removed, so that taking together the Increase In
funding and the turning over of it to a longer term basis, we believe we've
very substantially assisted in that area. And certainly those that are
involved have expressed their satisraction to us. Gould I just go a bit
beyond the CYSS aspect of your question as Important as that is. We have
tried to have a totally intergrated approach to this question of the problems
of young people, and the tralneeships Is only just one part, albeit a very
important part, of what we're doing. We are as well consolidating a number
of other employment schemes which Involve the community and bringing them
together with the increased funding capacity so that the community and
community organisatlons can be better assisted to help with the problems
or the sort of young people that you're talking about. More generally
we are going to ensure that within the whole education training sy5Lem by
rationalising the youth incomes support payments that. there Is going tobe
as much Incentive for young people, including disadvantaged young people,
to stay in the education stream rather than going out onto the unemployment
benefits. It has been, I believe, a stupidity that has allowed to hiave
emerged over the years that thiere's more Incentive for young people and
to their families, to allow young people to go onto unemployment benerits
rather than just stay in the education system. So that within two or three
years we will. have eliminated that gap and there will be no further Incentive
for young people to do that there will be the incentive for them to stay
In various training and education systems. So that in thia integrated
way we believe that as we go towards the end of this decade, we will have
done a very great deal to change the face of the youth unemployment training
problem. 1 II..
F
1/. . S rr.-wP. a r
Caller: Firstly let me say I'm 20 and I've got no complaints.
I just wanted to say that I agree with the non-fringe benefits thing that
is going on, because my husband works and he takes a rritz, cheese and
lettuce sandwich to work every day, and don't see why his taxes should have
to pay for other businessmen to have a nice lunch.
PM: Good on you Karen, you're absolutely right. You're In exalted
company. Could I just read to you what the Federal President of the Liberal 7
Party, MrValdelr,, had to say because he talks about this as a disease. He
said, I think again to reverse the whole disease, if you like to call it
a fringe benefits, which had developed over a decade or more. This is what
he had to say in July or this year, he called It a disease, and said that
Mr Keating who'stackling this was trying to do It In one stroke and he said
what was being tackled to do this wasa fair and just thing In this country.
The longer we leave doing it the harder it Is going to be. The great tragedy
or course, Karen, is that while the President or the Liberal Party refers
to this disease as it has been, condemns It and says something should be
done about it, of course of political opponents have been as opportunistic
as they always are, and say oh well, that's no we think It i3 a fair
thing for the Karens of this world and the great majority of ordinary people
to pay for the tax free lunches of a few.
Caller: The way I think of It Is these businessmen ply other people
with food just to make a deal then they can't be very good businessmen in
the first place.
PM: That's not a bad point Karen I mean I just have a laugh
to myself when I hear them say that this business lunch was Important to
do this deal, the deal was worth millions of dollars, if a deal was worth
millions and millions of dollars and if Its not that Important that you
can't finish it up without having the Karens and the ordinary tax payers
of this world pay for a free lunch, well then you're a funny sort of businessmen.
You're absolutely right.
C: Seeing that this subject has come up. You know that the
restaurantuers and the hospitaJlty industry generally is mounting a fairly
stiff campaign against John Bannon on this, and the assertion 1.5 basically
that If John Bannon Is not elected it will be a kick In the pants to bob
Hawke and his fringe benefit tax. Would you accept It as a kick In the
pants if John looses the election?
PM., Well it won't happen and I'd he will win the election
and win It well. And so It is quite an absurd thing to say. A much more
realistic proposition is that I should put it to you and to the Liberal
Party, when Mr Bannon wins the election, will you take that au an enidursement
of our tax package?
.12/
12.
C; Well obviously John Bannon is now distan~ cing himself and
saying I don't agree with what's happening with regard to loss of jobs.
PM: What's the loss of jobs?
C: Well they are saying it Is about
PM. Well just let me give you the facts, I mean I know you've
talked about this restaurant business and the implications. It Is . to tally
unwarranted on the evidence, totally unwarranted and misleading cam paign.
Let me give you the facts. These are the official statistical facts about
what's beeni happening the period since this was announced. Now, this Is
from the Commonwealth Employment Service. Vacancy notifications in the
hospItality Industry rose by 20%, that's from 8,078 to 9,726 between September
when the tail measur-eu were announced and October this year. Over 12 months
to October, vacancies rose by 21%. The total 0or 300 vacancies recorded
In November 1985 was the second highest on record and 50% over the
corresponding count for November 198A4.
C: So what do you make or that?
PM: Well what I make of that is a total that destroys
the proposition that we've had a 30% reduction In jobs. These are the notifications
of vacancies In the Industry. The two months this year since the announced
taxation changes vacancies were 37% higher than for the same two months
of' last year. It was Interesting, there was a comment just the last couple
of days when there was supposed to be this great organisation for this
enormous demonstration outside Parlilament House Canberra. The President
of the Queensland lroresslonal Catering Employees Association was reported
as saying ' that a hundred rather than five hundred restaurant workers would
march on Parliament today, their plans were scaled down oecause the workers
were toc, busyl. If they really believe that the mass of ordinary South
Australians are going to be taken In by this than I believe they are
insulting the intelligence or their voters because the great mass of people,
like Karen, they pay their taxes, they take their lunch to work, they've
goi no rorts and they find It offensive that over the years they've had
to pay more taxes so that the prIveltged few can have their lunches paid
for by the ordinary taxpayers of this country.
C: Are you going to do a deal with Democrats?
PM: Let me make It quite clear what Paul Keating and I have
aid about this question. We have said that the Substance and basis, the
main thrust of the taxation package Is not going to be changed. We are
prepared to talk with the Democrats, there may be some areas of fine tuning...
C: Not phasing in, but fine tuning?
PM: No, some areas of fine tuning that we have to get the
legislation through the Senate.
C: But you are prepared to make some compromise, even If It's
fine tuning.-rw
PM: Yes, but not to~ basic substance of the package.
C: What would you regard as fine tuning.
P14; I think It is appropriate that the Treasurer and the Democrats,
are allowed to talk about that rather than me supervising It publicly from
the sidelines on air. But I repeat to you Jeremy, that the basis of that
tax package Is not negotiable. The main principles and thrust of it are
not negotiable. We hope from what the Democrats have said that, and I believe
this to be the case, that they take the view~ that the-government is entitled
to have Its package through. Now If they want to as I say, discuss with
Paul some elements which don'It go to those basic principles, and that means
their support will forthcoming or otherwise it might'n be, well then
obviously, sensibly as a government you've got to listen to what they have
to cay 0 Pml it's good to see you.
PM: Jeremy, it's been good to be with you again, I appreciate
it very much, and I would also like to thank listeners for their calls.
E~ n d Y1