PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF PANEL INTERVIEW WITH STEWART CRANNEY, RADIO
2MMM, SYDNEY, 7 MARCH 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
CRANNEY: This morning, in the run up to the election, we're
joined by a panel of experts in their field Greg Sheridan
from the Australian, Peter Garrett, President of the ACF, Dr
Kate Short from the Total Environment Centre,
Financial Correspondent Peter Switzer, from Rolling Stone
and The Age newspaper Sean Carney, our Canberra Bureau
Political Chief John Hewitt and MMN's News Director David
White. And of course, Bob Hawke.
Now down to business. Prime Minister, thank you for joining
us this morning.
PM: My pleasure, Stewart.
CRANNEY: I'll go straight to Greg Sheridan of the
Australian for our first question.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, I've never seen an election in
which the people are so uninterested, so disillusioned, so
cynical. You've acknowledged that cynicism. Do you accept
any responsibility for the degree of cynicism in this
election and what do you think has caused this cynicism?
PM: Well I think the cynicism and lack of interest is
somewhat overstated though, but I do accept, as I've said
quite clearly from some months back that in Australia, as in
the rest of the world, there are non traditional political
issues which have arisen which have become much more the
preserve of parties outside the mainstream. And I, of
course, refer basically to environmental issues and that's
not something that I worry about. I think it's something
which should be welcomed. I mean, the fact that people,
particularly young people here and around the world see this
as an issue which is, in a sense, their preserve and as much
theirs as that of the politicians is something that we
should welcome.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, one of the things that can make
people cynical is when a political leader squibs a hard
choice. You and your Government have championed a non
discriminatory immigration policy, you've also championed a
large immigration program 140,000 this year. Increasingly
the environmentalist movement opposes a big population for
Australia and that means opposing a big immigration program.
Do you commit your Government to maintaining the 140,000
immigration intake or will you give in to the green movement
and lower the immigration intake?
PM: Yes, I do commit to that. Now I think the relationship
between myself and my Government and the environmental
movement is an interesting one and certainly neither they
nor we would say it is one of total identity, nor should it
be. They wouldn't want it that way and I certainly wouldn't
want it that way. And on this area let me say I don't think
the environment movement is monolithic I'm sure it's not
because I've spoken to people within it who don't share that
view. Now, let me make what I think are the two basic
points. Firstly, there is no doubt that if you look at this
issue globally the population explosion is an environmental
problem. No doubt about that. We, the world's population
is just going up and up and up at a rate which is going to
pose for the globe horrendous sorts of problems. I mean, I
just was in India last year and the population increase each
year is the same as Australia's total population about 17
million. Now that's one thing and I think as a world we
should be concerned about it, but that doesn't mean that we
here with 17 million people have got to be totally worried
about increasing ours. I think that Australia would be
better of f with a larger population and you've got to
balance your economic capacity to absorb with a desirable
to your population. So my answer to your question is,
globally I think population explosion is a problem, as far
as Australia is concerned I think the 140,000 target we've
got is about right.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, on another topic, yesterday I had
the joy of reading through the policies of the Australian
Democrats in detail and they're a remarkably extravagant and
uncosted collection of policies. Does your dependence on
Democrat preferences and the same for the Liberal Party mean
that perhaps you've been a bit soft on the Democrats in
taking them to task on their, on their actual policies?
PM: Well, I think if you test us in the period when we're
actually in Government rather than at election time and how
we deal with them and we put it right up to the Democrats
where our legislation is there, and it's legislation which
always is framed in terms of a compatibility of what's
desirable and economically achievable. I mean, if their
particular lines and attitudes initially are shaped by what
is cuckooland approach on some issues, we tell them so
and we organise that they should in the end support us. Now
we don't always get their support, but we have proved in a
period of seven years that where it basically matters we can
get them.
QUESTION: Would you agree with Senator Walsh's description
of the Democrats as the fairies at the bottom of the garden?
PM: That's Peter Walsh's explanation and it may be valid
for some of them but I don't think it's, as a generic term,
it's totally fair in that I think that there are some
Democrats who are genuine about wanting to see another way.
The thing which is frustrating about the Democrats and let
me be quite straightforward is that having no
responsibility in the end, not being governments or
potential governments, they are able to cap the sail of the
wind as it were and say, yes, that looks as though it's the
most acceptable position, let's embrace it. Now that's OK
if you're not having to form the hard decisions in
Government, but it's not a luxury which is open to
Government. QUESTION: Prime Minister, a foreign policy question.
PM: Yes.
QUESTION: You placed a good deal of emphasis on our
O relationship with China. What did the events of Tienanmen
mean for Australia's emerging relationship with this region
of the world and with China?
PM: Good question, Greg. Let me say this by way of
preface. I never, in developing the relations with China
which I was very much involved in myself, did so at the
expense of the rest of the region and that's quite evident
by the success of the APEC Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation Conference that I hosted here at the end of
last year. What do they mean? They mean this, that the
twin reforms that were being pushed basically by my close
friend Zhao Ziyang under the patronage of Deng have been
stemmed. He understood, and may I say by way of background
that I speak from probably 20 to 30 hours of private
conversation over the years with Zhao Ziyang. Zhao Ziyang
understood that political reform was the inevitable
concomitant of successful economic reform. He knew that if
you were going to get growth in China you were going to be
able to lift the standards of people and deal with a whole
range of issues, not only economic, environmental and so on,
but you had to have the country growing and that required a
release from the stultifications of the command economy of
the Marxist Leninist model. He knew that if you were going
to do those things you had to have political liberation as
well. He came up in the end against the stumbling block of
top price reform because he'd gone a long way in economic
reform, but once you've got price reform that means you had
to cut out subsidies, and when you cut out subsidies that
meant increases in prices and that meant political upheaval.
wouldn't allow him to go ahead. So it means that the
thrust to economic reform has been stopped and there's been
an imposition of this, of this dictatorship by a group of
frightened old men. That is bad for the people of China and
it is potentially destabilising to the region. I believe we
haven't had the degree of full support from China in regard
to resolving the Cambodian question that we might have had
if those events hadn't occurred.
CRANNEY: On the subject of Peter Garrett, whereas he's not
able to be in the studio this morning, we have taped a
couple of questions from him as President of the ACF. We'll
have the first of those now.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, you repeal the Coastal Waters
Act 1980 and the Coastal Waters State Powers Act 1988 in
order to provide the Commonwealth with powers to develop a
national coastal management strategy and protect our
coastline? PM: Peter I'll give you a clear answer to that. What you
know, I think, that I have referred the question of coastal
development to the Resource Assessment Commission. What I
will do is to wait to get the report from the Resource
Assessment Commission. I'll discuss that report with the
States because, as you know, I always try, if it's possible,
to act cooperatively with the States. And if out of the
report from the Resource Assessment Commission and
discussion with the States I can get an acceptable outcome
in terms of ensuring the protection of our coastal
environment, that will be it. If out of the discussion with
the States we couldn't get the powers and the authority to
do what may be recommended to protect the coastal
environment, I would be prepared to act unilaterally.
QUESTION: Will you instruct your Government to move towards
phasing out uranium mining during the next term of the
Parliament? PM: I can't give you that promise Peter. It would be easy
to say yes, but I wouldn't give you the answer I'll instruct
them to phase it out. What I have said Peter is that we've
referred the question of mining to the committee...
receive their report. You will notice that I indicated the
other day that it would be my clear disposition that there
wouldn't be any extension beyond the..
CRANNEY: This morning we have a question from a Melbourne
listener, somebody who was tuned to 3MMM when we invited
them to pose a question to you.
QUESTION: I'm Edith from Frankston and I was wondering if
Mr Hawke is going to do something definite about Japanese
buying up Australia. Because I'm a grandmother of ten and
I'm quite concerned, and especially as Australians aren't
allowed to buy anything, land, in Japan. Nobody's
mentioning it in all these speeches. I'd like to have
something definite on that.
PM: Yes Edith I suppose the easy thing for me to say is yes
we'll stop the Japanese buying. I'm not going to give you
that answer, although it sounds as though it's the one you'd
like. I'm giving you the one I think is the answer that's
right for Australia. We need in this country investment
from overseas, not unlimited investment Edith. We need to
be a country which is not just dependent upon what we dig up
out of the ground and what we grow, which has tended to be
the picture of Australia in the past. We need to develop
our manufacturing industry. Certainly we need to develop
our service industry so that we can export a wider range of
goods. And to do these things well there are other
countries in the world, including Japan who's got know-how
and so on, that we ought to have in here. Now that doesn't
mean unlimited buying up and investment. That's why we've
got a thing called the Foreign Investment Review Board
Edith. That is at arms length from the Government. It
gives us advice and it says whether a particular proposal to
purchase something in Australia is consistent with
Australia's national interest. I will keep the Foreign
Investment Review Board so that we can have that advice as
to whether any particular investment is consistent with the
Australian national interest. I would point out to you
Edith that the Liberals and National Party propose to
abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board.
CRANNEY: Prime Minister, a question from a Sydney listener
from Cronulla.
QUESTION: My name is Linda Johnson, I'm from Cronulla. I'd
just like to say Mr Hawke that it's my first time voting
this year and I'd just like to ask why you honestly think I
should vote for you. Thank you. Bye.
PM: Thanks Linda. Well you couldn't give me a more direct
question than that. I'll try and make the answer as brief
as I can Linda. Firstly I think you should vote for me
because I have revolutionised the educational opportunity
pattern in Australia. I would hope that you're one of the
beneficiaries. In the seven years before I came to office
in ' 83, in those seven years the conservatives who had the
responsibility for governing this country had not lifted the
level of kids staying on in school at all. It had gone from
34% to 36%. In other words they went out of office having
done nothing to increase the equality of opportunity in
education. Only one in three of our kids were staying on in
school. I've dramatically changed that. It's now two in
three and I've lifted it to 62%. Two in three instead of
one in three. That means Linda that the kids are staying on
in school not just from the wealthy suburbs but wherever you
go kids now, because I've more than doubled the secondary
education allowances to kids from low to low to middle
income families, trebled the Austudy allowances, kids are
now able to stay on in school whatever the income level of
their parents. I think it's hard to imagine anything more
important than that and a more criminal neglect of the
responsibility of government that the conservatives
followed. Their education policies are still based upon the
concept of privilege. So that's one fundamental thing. The
second fundamental thing is the question of employment
opportunities. We've together created 1.6 million new jobs
Linda in the last seven years. That's five times faster
than the mob that were in before me. It's more than twice
as fast as the rest of the world. So your chances of being
educated and trained and getting employment are infinitely
greater under my policies. I'll just go to some of the
other things but let me go also to the question of the
environment which I imagine Linda must be important for you.
Very simple and indisputable facts that I put in the debate
the other day. The Franklin would not be running free if I
were not Prime Minister. If the conservatives had been in
office the Franklin would be dammed. It's only because I'm
Prime Minister of a Labor Government that the Daintree is
not being logged. They opposed that decision to stop
logging. It's only because I am Prime Minister of a Labor
Government that Kakadu is not being mined. They opposed the
decisions there. It's only because I am Prime Minister of a
Labor Government that the tall forests of Tasmania have been
saved. They opposed it. So if you want environmental
responsibility you vote for Bob Hawke and Labor.
CRANNEY: That says that. I think we'll go to questions
from our economic analyst Peter Switzer. Good morning
Peter. QUESTION: as the station's interpreter of gobbleygook,
which economics often is, I am regularly asked by listeners
why is there a privileged group who only pay 13.5% on home
loans? Young people on 17-18% think you're afraid of losing
votes. What would you tell them?
PM: Well it was a decision that was taken for the time. We
that people that were there had taken their loans at
that rate and we made the decision that they should be kept
there, knowing that over a period of time that would wash
out, as it is Peter. So there was no other reason than
that. The basic issue I think, as you'll appreciate Peter,
for the future is under which side of politics are interest
rates likely to come down. The banking system is saying
now, as you know, that under our policies and they were
saying it as recently as yesterday interest rates will
fall. They cannot possibly fall under our opponents because
of two reasons. There'd be a wages explosion under our
opponents and they would blow the budget surplus by their $ 6
billion unfunded promises. So they'll fall under us. They
can't under our opponents.
QUESTION: But one thing I'm sure you've discovered, that
charisma can't take on interest rates very easily
PM:
QUESTION: but certainly interest rates are the one thing
that I've noticed people who were great supporters of you in
the past are now saying that they're crippled by interest
rates. And they were particularly incensed when banks were
saying that if you deregulated these 13.5% loans, normal
rates, the floating rates would come down by one to one and
a half percent. Now when you look at the period of time
people have been paying high interest rates it adds up quite
a lot of money, a year for some people.
PM: I know the banks are saying that to some extent. I've
explained why it was done, that there was an existing
situation and obligation we thought should not be interfered
with. Let me make the point however about the level of
interest rates. I've said on a number of occasions that we
haven't had interest rates high for fun. I mean I'm an
intelligent guy, I understand politics, I understand
economics, and I know that people don't like high interest
rates. The simple facts were and I don't want to blind
your listeners with a lot of statistics the simply. facts
were that last year, last financial year, we had a situation
where consumption increased, as you know Peter, by eight
percent and our production by four percent. The gap of four
percent dragging in imports. We simply had to soften
demand. We couldn't tighten our budget policy any more and
we certainly couldn't tighten wages policy. So it had to be
monetary policy. Now the fact is that that is working and
it's working in a way where we've still got growth, we've
still got employment, but we are going to be able to
moderate that demand for imports. And the banking industry
is saying that it's working and under my policies interest
rates are going to come down. That's the picture for the
future. QUESTION: Right. But as you know you could've say raised
taxes. Of course it's a political loser but at least the
of restraining demand would've fallen right across the
entire community rather than this narrow group, not a narrow
group, but a broad group of young people who are kicking off
their lives under a lot of strain. Now a lot of people on
13.5% have also received two rounds of tax cuts. These
people should vote for you and Paul Keating five times over
because you've been very good to them. But young people I
think, particularly in marginal seats, you're going to find
they won't forgive you on this particular point.
PM: You've just got to make a judgement. You've made a
judgement about the intelligence of those people. You say
they're going to have a punishment vote, they're going to
say I'm going to vote against Bob because he put interest
rates up. I'd just make a different judgement about their
intelligence. I think that they understand that Bob Hawke,
after 30 years in public life working for ordinary people,
that's what I've been about. I mean for 20 years working in
the trade union movement for ordinary people I've devoted my
whole life to that and then ten years of political life for
the same thing. I think they're going to say well Bob
Hawke, he hasn't given 30 years of his life to go and do
something nasty to me for the fun of it. I think they're
going to much more intelligently say, than your analysis
Peter, if I can say so with respect, they're going to say
the 24th of March is going to determine who is going to be
running the country for the next three years. Now Hawkey's
done some things done some things that were a bit tough, we
don't like them, but under those policies are interest rates
coming down. Answer yes. Peacock, firstly, clearly doesn't
understand the economy. He's not allowed really to answer
questions or be exposed to analysis like this about the
operation of the economy. But more importantly than that he
can't tell us that there's not going to be a wages
explosion. He shrugs his shoulders and says who's to know
when you ask him what wages outcome is going to be. And
he's got a $ 6 billion blowout of the deficit. So say
inevitably under Peacock interest rates must go up. They'll
come down under Hawkey. Now I just think that's the sort of
analysis rather than the kick in the but
QUESTION: Sure, but with respect to your view Prime
Minister, what about consumption tax? In 1985 you were a
big supporter of that. Now that would actually restrain
demand, it would hit everybody and in particular it would
pick up people in the black economy who are earning money,
not paying tax on it. And what I'm arguing here is that you
and the coalition dodge these tough measures because they
are politically unpopular.
PM: You can't say I dodge tough decisions
QUESTION: On this one I think you
PM: On the contrary. No. I, in the 1984 election, said
we'll have a tax summit. And you're right Peter in
recalling that we put up a proposal for a reform of the tax
system which involved the introduction of a consumption tax
with, may I say, a whole range of safety net provisions to
try and limit the regressive impact of it that is that the
consumption tax has a harsher impact on lower income people
than it does on higher income people. Now, the community as
a whole, let me say, the trade union movement, the welfare
organisations and business I mean the cries of business
now for a consumption tax just make me laugh. They
torpedoed it in 1985. So we went ahead with the community,
right across and said we don't want a consumption tax.
We said alright, that's the community view. We restructured
it, we brought in the capital gains tax, we brought in the
fringe benefits tax, a whole range of other taxes. And we
think that we've now produced a much fairer tax system.
What would happen now if you brought in a consumption tax
would be an immediate boost of inflation. We don't think
that' s appropriate.
CRANNEY: We'll go to Kate Short from the Total Environment
Centre.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, your Government's decision on
Wesley Vale was a significant step forward to reducing
chemical pollution of the environment and the Government
acted to prevent the release of organo-chlorines into Bass
Strait from Wesley Vale which is very significant. Does the
Labor Government propose to have an ongoing commitment to
reducing the environmental pollution from organo-chlorines
but specifically, when do you offer us a commitment to
finally ban the use of those organo-chlorine poisons,
dieldren, aldren(?), chlordane and heptachlor.
PM: Well, in regard to mills generally, Kate, as you know
we're going to have national guidelines there and we
wouldn't permit the operation of any mills which didn't meet
those guidelines. And, as you say, in regard to Wesley Vale
they were unacceptable levels. In regard to the emissions
of unacceptable or dangerous chemicals generally, I think
you know our commitment there to action. We have, for
instance, in regard to CFCs the commitment that by 1995 that
be cut down by 95 percent. And we have in the statement
that I made last year, the overall environmental statement,
a commitment that within our power where we have the power
that we will take action to reduce the emission of dangerous
chemicals because I think you know it came up in a
conversation we were having in part of the problem in
regard to industry generally is that it's not within our
Commonwealth terrible situation in Australia where
you've got to get the cooperation of States if you're going
to in national sense have the control over the emission of
dangerous chemicals.
QUESTION: Another question, Prime Minister. Recently, I
received information about the use of pesticides on crops
that are grown to feed cattle, cattle that are exported
overseas to the Japanese and American markets, this is up in
the North West of NSW. I simultaneously received
information about the use of pesticides on these crops being
used to feed to our cattle, those pesticides, two of them in
particular, are not registered for use in the United States.
They are banned in the United States and they are, in fact
recent registrations in Australia, at least one of them.
Now under these circumstances do you consider that your
Government's aware enough of future problems of beef cattle
residue sort of problems of the type that we had in ' 87
where our beef market was threatened because of residues.
Do you think we're doing enough to protect not only our own
food chain in Australia, but very specifically the beef
export market?
PM: Yes, well obviously I can't comment upon the two things
that you've just and I understand you don't expect me
to, but let me say this, that I know that John Kerin who I
think, I hope you'd agree is, you know, a quite outstanding
Minister in this area acted very deliberately and quickly
when those problems arose three years ago and it's my
understanding, Kate, not only from our own people here but
from within the United States that they expressed
satisfaction of the action that was taken to make sure that
the processes of beef production in this country were
satisfactory in terms of protecting human consumption
standards. If there's anything in particular that you want
to make available to me that's come to your attention, I'll
certainly pass it on to John, but I'd be very surprised if
they weren't aware of it.
CRANNEY: Prime Minister we have a call from a Brisbane
listener by the name of George Walker that we'd like to play
for you.
QUESTION: If he doesn't want us to spend our money and save
it, why don't they just take off, why do they tax us on our
savings when we put our money in the bank when we ' ye already
been taxed? If they took this tax off our savings in the
bank, I'd put all my money in the bank and I wouldn't go
buying any stereos and things like that from overseas.
PM: Well George, the fellow who wants to become Prime
Minister, Andrew Peacock, last year when he started off on
his sort of pre-election campaign, his dry run, started off
on the first day by saying that he had the answer to
Australia's problems. He was going to bring in tax
deductibility. Now it sounded great, but then when it was
subject to questioning, you've got to look at on both sides
deductibility for savings and deductibility for
expenditures and when you look the question in detail it
was subject to so many practical problems that his own
people as well as our own people on our side and in the
Treasury decided that it was, in practical terms,
impossible. What we've got to do George is, you're right,
you're quite right, we've got to encourage savings in this
country. The greatest single contribution that we're making
to that is the revolution in superannuation. When we came to
office, superannuation was the preserve of a privileged few,
particularly professionals, white collar workers. Now as a
result of introducing it into the wage negotiation
processes, we will have within three years, a situation
where every employer will be paying $ 30 a week for every
employee and most particularly, may I say, including women
who were very much excluded from it before. $ 30 a week for
each employee and that's going to add over the period in the
remainder of this century, hundreds of millions of dollars
into our superannuation funds and it's going to increase
savings within the community and it's going to be relevant
to our debt problem. That's the most effective way of
stimulating savings and of course we've, we're doing that.
The Opposition proposes to abolish that concept of
superannuation as an award provision.
SC: Well, Jimmy Barnes is pretty well accustomed to working with
a big audience and this morning, a bigger one than average,
through 2M'MM in Sydney, 3M'MM Melbourne, 4MMM Brisbane, and New FM
in Newcastle and 4GGG on the Gold Coast, we just played Jimmy-
" Working Class Man". Our guest this morning is the Prime
Minister, who is well aware of Jimmy Barnes. We have a little
ditty that was made in our Sydney's studios that you might be
amused by. We'll play it now for you.
( Ditty played).
SC: Jimmy Barnes look out. Seriously for a moment, we'll
cross to 3MM14 In Melbourne, where Sean Carney is waiting in the
studios. if you could just put those headphones on again, I
think Sean is available...
PMa Hazel, I'm afraid, said I just lost the musician's vote.
She said I'm not a very tuneful singer.
SC: Are you there Sean?
Carney: I am.
SC: Please, if you'd like to speak to the Prime Minister, he
awaits to hear from you.
PM: G'day, Sean.
Carney: G'day. How are you Prime Minister?
PM: Good.
Carney: Prime Minister, three years ago, you promised to wipe
out child poverty, I'm wondering if in your next term you'd
perhaps be willing to make a pledge an the issue of homelessness?
Under your new housing assistance package, the real level of
12
funds for public housing provided by your Government is lower now
than under the Fraser Government. If you are re-elected, will
you increase your financial commitment to public housing?
PM; Well, just let me go to the first part of your question
first and then to the second. You talk about the child poverty.
All I want to say on that is, Sean, I hope that you won't
question the judgement that's been made by the Brotherhood of St
Lawrence through Bishop Hollingworth, Julian Disney of The
Australian Council of Social Service and The Australian Institute
of Family Studies. Just let me quote what each of them has said
on the promise I made that there would be no f inancial need for
an Australian child to live in poverty after 1990. And that was
by promising to give indexed proportions of the married pension
rate to children in low income families. Hollingworth, in 1989,
said: " In strict income security terms, the Prime Ministerial
promise will be achieved". Julian Disney said: " It is without
doubt, a remarkable achievement first to have set and then to
have achieved the payments of benchmarks to children in low
income families". And thirdly, The Australian Institute of
Family Studies said: " By these means, the benchmarks set by the
Government have been met". And under the meeting of those
benchmarks, we're paying out over two billion dollars a year now
into low income families with children. Just to give you an
example, a low income family one income, three kids, $ 320 a
week income they're getting $ 110 a week tax free, which is
equivalent to $ 170 a week wage increase. That's why those in the
area have said we've met that financial commitment. You're quite
right however, Sean, in saying that that hasn't met that
there is not poverty, there are not difficulties. And that's why
I've met with the institutions like the Brotherhood of St
Lawrence and The Australian Council of Social Services. Why I've
met with the State Governments now. And what we've got to do is
to work on ensuring that services get delivered, particularly in
areas where they're not so accessible the outer suburban fringe
areas now and some of the more remote rural areas. We've got to
make sure that services are delivered.
S on the question of housing, let me make these points. I have
very substantially increased the amounts of money available for
refuges very, very substantial increases and have sought to
get dollar for dollar support from the States as well. In
housing generally, there's been a nine percent improvement in
housing starts under us compared with before. About an
additional twelve thousand starts a year. And we've now revamped
the Commuonwealth / State Housing Agreement and lifted the amount
from some seven hundred million dollars a year up to just over a
billion and release more funds by changing the loan to grant
arrangements so that there will be more money available for
welfare housing. And let me say, we will continue to do that
into the future, Sean.
Carney: Prime Minister, you mentioned the outer suburbs in your
answer. PM: Yeah.
Carney: I wanted to speak to you about the suburbs. The Social
Security Minister, Mr Howe, last year referred to a new poor
emerging in the outer suburbs of our big capital cities.
PM: Mm.
Carney: With their high crime rates, their vandalism,
unemployment and insufficient government services. Why doesn't
your Government have a specific strategy to improve those areas?
W PM: Well, this campaign is not finished yet. And I would
Suggest, Sean, that you will find by the time we go into the
election, that you will have found that we will have addressed
this question. Unfortunately, on this programme is not the time
to announce what I will be announcing later. But I can assure
you that Brian H~ owe has not just been talking about this issue.
Brian is an action man, as I think you would agree. I think he's
the best Social Security Minister this country's seen. He's been
talking with welfare organisations, like The Australian Council,
the umbrella organisation, The Australian Council of Social
Services, the Brotherhood of St Lawrence and you will find that
we'll be making announcements which are specifically directed
towards the sort of area of problem that you've raised in your
question. Carney: Thanks Prime Minister.
SSC& Thank you Sean. Thank you Prime Minister. We'll go back to
s orne music. We'll play ( inaudible)
( Music)
SC: Well, first there was ( inaudible) with " Nothing Compares to
You". And finally we played " Simple Minds". If it was only so
simple, as the song was called, to promise you a miracle. Good
morning folks, you're listening to Stuart Cranney on 2MMM in
Sydney, 314MM in Melbourne, 4MMM Brisbane, New FM in Newcastle and
4GGG on the Gold Coast. our guest this morning is the Prime
Minister, Bob Hawke. ' Mr Hawke, we spoke to some listeners in
Newcastle. If you put your headphones on, we have this question
on the matter of inflation.
Caller: Mr Hawke, I'd like to know what you're honestly going to
do about inflation? And can't you please get ready for politics
without knocking the Opposition all the time? Concentrate on
what you're going to do instead of what they're not doing?
P14: Well, let me take the second part of the question first. I
think if you look at Mr peacock's launch of Monday, you will see
that that was overwhelmingly consisting of an attack upon us.
I'll just ask you to compare and contrast that with what you'll
see me doing on Thursday when I launch our campaign. Politics
necessarily, of course, I must say, involves two things.
Certainly if you believe in yourself, it involves you talking
about what you've done as a basis for asking people to trust you
for what you'll do in the future as your policies for the
future. But also politics is a question of choice. It's either
me or Mr Peacock that you're going to have as Prime Minister
after the 24th. And so part of my responsibility is to analyse
what a Peacock alternative would mean. I would not be
discharging my responsibilities to the electors of Australia if I
simply said: " Look at what Bob Hawke's done and look at what Bob
WHawke promises for the futuren. And didn't analyse for you the
implications of the alternative.
Now as to inf lation, let me make the point there both in
positive terms and in terms of the alternative of Mr Peacock.
Remember this as the basic fact. When we came to of fice,
inflation was about eleven percent. It wasn't an accident that
it was about eleven percent because you had a wages policy under
the then government conservative government which was a wages
free for all. And we'd had a wages explosion gone out by about
seventeen percent wages had exploded inflation went through
the roof. Now, what I have done about inflation is to get wages
under control. We've had predictable wages outcome and we have
dramatically reduced inflation. With the decline in our terms of
trade, inflation went up but it is coming down again now and with
the wages outcome of seven percent for the next year, that I've
now got a commitment from the trade union movement for, we
believe inflation will be coming down further and that's the
judgement of the Treasury. They said at the end of last year,
that the underlying inflation rate was 5.7 percent. So, we've
got wages under control and we've got a budget surplus. Now, the
alternative is again a wages explosion under Mr Peacock because
he said he doesn't know what the wages outcome would be under his
policies. They could explode again and they would. And he also
got the six billion dollar hole in his funding promises so the
budget surplus would be blown, further putting pressure upon
inflation. So, I face right up to your question. I say our
policies are directed towards bringing inflation down and they're
recognised that they will. And the alternative is necessarily an
increase in inflation for the reasons that I've put.
SC: Prime Minister, a familiar face across the table now. Our
Canberra Bureau Chief, John Hewitt, who I'm sure you've met.
PM; Yeah John.
JH: How are you doing?
PM: Good.
JHt My questions centres on despite what you said earlier it
seems to me that many people no longer see you as the bloke next
door. I mean, I mean is it inevitable that leadership isolates
you from the average Aussie?
PM: it's inevitable, John, that I'm not going to be seen as much
as the bloke next door after I've been seven years living In The
Lodge and Kirribilli. I mean, that's inevitable. And it has its
pluses because you are Prime Minister and it gives you all the
opportunities and challenges of doing things that are involved
with that. But there is a minus and that is that f or both
Hazel and myself we don't have the opportunity for the
gregarious mixing with people that was so much a part of my life
before. But I still think f rom the evidence T have when I move
around Australia and not only election times, I go around the
electorates, I mix with the kids in the schools. Now you see the
reception I get from the kids, and they're pretty. they're
pretty acute judges, you know, as to whether a bloke's dinkum or
not. Whether he's one of them, whether he's Australian, or
whether he's some bloke that's remote from them. I don't think
there's much better judges than that. And the fact that I love
kids and are committed to them-and we're about them and their
future. They understand that I think. So, it's inevitable, yes,
you get some isolation.
JHt Sure.
PM: I think I'm still there.
JHt Okay. on unemployment, the Government's decided on a twelve
month limit for unemployment benefits compared to the Coalition's
nine months, and you are promising re-training. Given the
general community support for cuts to the ' unemployment benefit,
did you feel a need to follow the Coalition's lead, albeit with a
bit of extra time and a more human face?
PM: No. It's much, much different to that. What we've
announced now is not something out of kilter and out of line with
what we've been doing. What we've been doing over seven years is
to drastically reform the whole process of dealing with and
looking after the people in the community who are not fortunate
enough just to be automatically in the workforce. You know the
whole range of new training programmes Jet Start, New Start,
Skill Share. All those programmes have been built up over the
years with one aim in mind and that is to make sure that those
less fortunate in the community either those with a longer
unemployment experience, or with some particular disabilitieshave
a programme which is fitted to their needs. And what Brian
Howe, on behalf of the Government, has announced now just in the
last few weeks, is a continuation of that. we want to removeI
really, from the community the concept of the dole mentality that
there is a responsibility just to pay the unemployment benefit.
The responsibility of the community is to train people for
employment. And that's what these new programmes have done. The
great difference between us and the other mob is this. We have a
social safety net there which is composed of training and
commitment to people if for some reason or other they simply
can't get employment, to care for them. What the other mob is
about is to substitute a social trapdoor pay them for nine
months and then push them through the trapdoor and you've got no
further obligation to them. I just regard that as an
unacceptable concept.
SC: Prime Minister, we'll take one more piece of good Australian
rock n'roll support that industry and play " Spy Versus Spy".
We'll return in a moment.
( Music)
SC: I'm sure the spies aren't alone in asking that particular
question. I daresay we'd all like to know what the future holds.
Good morning folks. Dependent on where you're listening, you're
listening to 2100( in Sydney, 14MM in Melbourne, MMM in Brisbane,
New FM in Newcastle, and on the Gold Coast, it's 4GGG. Now, the
Sydney News Director, David White, for the Prime Minister, a
question. Dave.
DW: Prime Minister, this final question comes in part from a
Canadian geneticist from the Department of Zoology, University of
British Columbia, Professor David Suzuki.
" To me, the most pernicious truth that is repeated over and
over again by every politician, every business person, every
economist, is the sanctity of growth. We must have growth to
have steady progress. Now, the steady growth one percent, two
percent, three percent, twenty percent over a given period of
time is what we call in science, exponential growth, and any
scientist will tell you that nothing in the universe continues to
grow steadily, exponentially, indefinitely. And yet that is a
notionl that we cling to and that all of our government policies
are aimed towards maintaining steady economic growth. Now I
believe then that if you look at the ludicrous nature of the
faith in exponential growth, you only come to the conclusion that
we already consume to a far higher extent than we should and that
we ought to be aiming, if we care at all about what's going to
happen in the next century, not at zero growth. We should be
aiming at negative growth. It is the height of irresponsibility
to fail to see that economic growth steady economic growthcannot
be sustained."
Prime Minister what he's addressing is a new way of thinking.
Now, given most nations adherence to our current economic system,
4. b~ 17
can the change he suggests be accomplished without massive social
turmoil? People being thrown out of work?
PM: No, I believe it can't. I think in the end politics is
about the creation of greater happiness for those who you govern.
That's my simple view of what politics is about. And people's
concept of happiness does involve the idea of gradual improvement
in standards of living, and, importantly also, quality of life.
And quality of life is not necessarily a function of growth. I
accept that. But I think the human genius is such that we are
able to do both. That is to improve our material standards and to
accept the challenge and responsibility of improving our quality
of life. I don't accept the Professor's implied dichotomy that
you can only have either growth or improved quality. I think
sensible, intelligent communicative government can give you both.
It's not easy, but i think the balance is achievable.
imt Thank you.
SC: Thank you Prime Minister. We've actually run over time s0
we'll have to wrap up here. To Greg Sheridan from The
Australian, thanks Greg. Peter Switzer(?), Sean Carney, Dr Kate
Short, John Hewitt, Peter Garrett, David White and of course,
David Suzuki, thank you. But most of all, thank you Prime
Minister. It's been a pleasure having you on the programme this
morning. PM'; Well, Stuart, thank you very much. And can I say thank you
to you and to everyone on the panel and most particularly, of
course to your listeners. I've enjoyed it very much indeed.
SC: It's about time you got some pleasure from the media.
PM: I do generally.
SC: You've been listening to the first of our election ninety
specials with Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. The right of reply,
Wednesday, March 2.1st, with opposition Leader, Andrew Peacock.
ENDS.