INTERVIEW WITH JUDY TIERNEY, ABC RADIO, HOBART, 19 MARCH
1990
E & O0E PROOF ONLY
tJhUDe Y MTIuEltRiN-EFYuBn ctiYoonu ' vPeo lalcst, e d doa nygoruil ys etori oMur. s lyP eabceolciekv'se cotmhmaetn ttsh iasn
Wcould become an election Issue in the final week?
PRIME MINISTERt I have reacted, I have with controlled anger
Jaufdteyr. haTvhine g aknnsowwenr tthoa t yothuirs qhuaess tiboene n isi n ptrheseu maraebnlya Mfor. r sPoemaec octw, eo
and a half years# has not introduced the matter some six day.
before an election without himself wanting to make it an election
insesvueer . AccLuseet Mmre. mPaekaec oict k qhuimitese lcf leoafr btehinagt Ir achaisvte, nbout, t, wanhda t wIo udldo
say is that he is being recklessly opportunistic in deliberately
misrepresenting what thin proposalt is about. The proposal Ins
something which has certain principles laid down about it, and
one of those fundamental principles in that anything that may
develop should not be in any sense an enclave because such a
concept is abhorrent to everything for which I and the Government
and I believe the people of Australia stand. So those have been
commissioned from Government and indust ryt and we have all our
leading business enterprises involved in this# have the clear
agnudi diynegt phreirnec icpolmee st hMatr. thPeeraceo ciks tsoi xb ed anyos sbuegfgoerset iaoMn eolfe catni oenn# c laavned
says he's against this because he's against the concept of an
enclave. Mrs Peacock was given the opportiu~ ity Judy, laist
September, to be fully briefed personally on eve~ ything involved
in this, he declined that opportunity to be so briefed. And it
is very interesting now that you have the situation today where
his col league in the State of New South wales has repudiated himu,
Mr.-: reiner has completely repudiated him.
TIERNEY; Yes well Mr. Greiner is in favour of course.
PM: As is any reasonable person in favour of what is happening
and what is happening is that a concept is being investigated.
No decision has been made but what is being investigated is
Simple this is there a way in which Australia can attract to It
-2
PH conts in a very concentrated f orm, the leading edge
technology not only of Japan but of the United State. and, ofE
Europe so that there can be united with an increasingly educated
and trained Australian workforce the best technology of the rest
of the world, and anyone who purports to lead a major political
party in this country and who says now just an the eve of aim
election for obvious opportunistic reasons, that they would cut
dead the investigation into the possibility of attracting leading
technology to Australia, in being grossly irresponsible.
TIERNEY1 All that accepted, I think the interesting thing is
that it's become such a big deal simply because there's perhaps
nothing else has taken off as an issue in the loot few days up to
the election?
PM; No I wouldn't put it that way Judy, I wouldn't put it that
way at all. if you look for instance at today's Australian
nespaper, both the front page article by Paul Kelly, respected
political journalist, and the editorial of the Australian, what
has seized theme people and others I might say, is the enormity,
the sheer enormity and reckless adventurism and opportunism of
Mr. Peacock, and these people are repudiating it. Not in terms
of wanting to take sides with the Government but simply in terms
of looking at Australia's future interests. They are Saying if
there is one thing that Australia must do that's going to protect
the future for our children and their children is to make sure
that we get the best technology into Australia so that we can add
to our great extractive industries and our rural industries and
increasingly competent manufacturing industry and services
industry. And to do that we' ve got to ally to our own resources,
human and natural resources, we have to ally the best available
technology. And what these people are saying it in almost beyond
belief. The man who leads a major party and who aspires to the
prime ministership of this country should so recklessly put at
risk the future interests of this country, This is not a
peripheral issue.
TIERNEY: Apart from that though, most commentators are as one in
declaring this as a particularly boring campaign?
PM Well I can't really recall an election over recent years in
which the media hasn't said that. I mean let me say this, we ais
pol.. ticians have to accept responsibility to a very large extent
f or what the calibre of the campaign is. But to some extent tthe
media has to too. Let me make one particular paint, as you ' ve
opened up with an issue Judy, properly which has international
-3-
PH contt implications, the Multi-Function Polis. I have in the
early parts of the campaign at times tried to talk aboult
international aspects of Australia's position as related to thisa
campaign( but the media hasn't been interested at all in talkin,
about those issues. Now I think that the internationaLI
ramifications of the position of the Government and of the
Opposition are terribly interesting and very important for the
future of Australia, but the media doesn't seem to be interested
in carrying anything about it. Now I can't do anything about
that. TIERNEY$ So what do our, listeners think then. Good morning
Edward.
CALLER: Hello. Mr. Hawke my question is on superannuation.
PM: Yes Edward.
CALLERS Mr. Hawke, on the Nine Network program on Sunday the
eleventh of March, when you were asked if some super funds would
be worse off because of the capital gains tax you said no. You
said the superannuation funds can totally use imputation credits
to offset the fifteen per cent tax. Mr. Hawks this statement is
not correct, not truly correct$ an it does not apply to the many
superannuation funds which are capital guaranteed and only invest
in government and bank-backed securities. As these capital
TIERNEYs Thank you Edward. I think that's quite, get to the
point please and perhaps the Prime Minister would like to answer
it.
PM: Well Edward, let me say this. what has been said in a sense
more importantly than what I've said, look at what's been said by
the major funds the AMP, National Mutual, they've said they
didn't pay any tax in this last year on their super funds and
they've made it quite clear, as is the fact, that because of the
decisions that we made in 1988 Edward, it is up to the management
of the funds to use the law, the provisions of the law in a way
which is going to maximise the benefit for their fund members.
And the simple indisputable fact is this that if a fund chooses
to use the opportunity of investing in Australian equities, which
is _ what we were about in 1988 to increase the fund of savings for
Auiivalian business so that this would reduce the reliance on
overseas borrowings, if they do that they can get the full
strength of imputation credits, And that's the law and that's
what increasingly competitive funds will have to do.
TXERNRYt Thank you Edward. We've got a number of calls, tharik
you very much Edward. Good morning Leigh.
CALLERt Good morning. Mr. Hawke my question gets back to theo
business of manufacturing exports for Australia.
PM: Yes Leigh.
CALLER3 I'd like to commend obviously the initiatives th~ e
government in terms of the leading edge technology and the
science research area.# but 10d put it to you that much of tthe
outcome of that is quite a few year. away, you know# in other
words a lonq lead time to got results from that sort of effort-,
Iem not saying that we shouldn't be making that sort Of effort.
But there are in my view and my immediate experience marty
0 manufacturers or many potential manufacturers with good Ideas
that need to be taken into the worldwide market and yet where
they can't because of the small nature of the Australian markets
the sm4ll size of the market here, they can't got those produclts
out there without some sort of assistance. The film industry got
a one hundred and fifty per cent tax credit, what's wrong with
helping small manufacturers vith new products, new inventions?
TIERNEYt We finally got to the question there. I think the
Prime Minister understands it.
PM: Leigh, I do understand your question. Let me just briefly
refer to the first part of your observations and then come to the
guts of your question. It is the case Leigh of course, that wit~ h
these fifty cooperative research centres that we've setting up
we're going to bring together the beat research capacities of
C8IRO and the universities and the private sector# and I'm
terribly excited about this as is the scientific community.
You're right in Baying we wont get the results tomorrow about
V that but we'll start to create these centres very, very quickly
indeed and I believe it's going to, in the medium to longer term,
have an enormously positive impact upon developing our
Manufacturing export capacity. But coming then particularly to
what you've been saying, we have taken Account of what you're
talking about by adding to the existing scheme which is the
Export Market Development Grant Scheme. We are now adding tie
nebl4L: cheme which we outlined early in the campaign which is
caflvulated directly to take account of what you say. That is b~ y
acknowledging that there are some very swall enterprises which b~ y
themselves may not be able to have the impetus or the
0 5
PM contt dynamic to take advantage of assistance. We are making
provisions whereby associations can bring together groups of
small businesses to get the advantage of the financial assistance
that we are prepared to make available. go you're right in
saying that we need some imagination, new direction in this and
that's precisely what the new scheme is directed to doing Leigh.
TIERNEYt Thank you very much Leigh, and good morning Peter.
CALLERi Yes, good morning, Good morning Mr. Hawke.
P1s Good morning Peter,
CALLER: I voted for a change seven years ago and I'd like to
congratulate you and your team for the excellent Job you've
performed in turning around our economy and our overall livin~ g
standards which X feel have definitely improved. However three
yars ago you asked a percentage of the Australian population who
had decided to either refinance their mortgages or become new
homeowners to suffer for the surge in the economy which youir
government was responsible for. I for one, have done so during
this period and have found it progressively harder as mortgage
rates have increased. The question I'd like you to answer for ge
if you can, is why have our percentage of the population of
Australia had to do our bit, pull our horns in to put it bluntly,
while the remainder of the population who in large I guess would
have smaller mortgages than those with floating interest rate.,
have not had to suffer these mortgage increases. Why
TIERNEY: Thank you Peter, I think the Prime Minister understands
69
CALLERs Why can you not give us some tax relief from the
interest rate we pay over thirteen and a half per cent, or
alternatively after three years lift the thirteen and a half per
cent ceiling which will probably drop the rate slightly?
PMs Peter, a fair question. Let me make these points. It's a
complex area of issues that you've raised. Lot me go to thlLs
question of, part of what you're putting about possible
deductions in tax in relationship to interest. That was
something that was raised last year, you'll recall, when Xr.
Peacock started his mini campaign and it was soon dropped becauise
/ 66.9
-6-
PM conts as we know from our work that we'd done in Treasury
there were just so many complications on both sides of the ledger
that it's simply not possible to do it. Lot me now go to the
point more generally though Peter that in this economy it was i
situation where the level of demand had increased so much in the
housing area and the investment area that, if I could give you
just a simple statistic Peter, in that last year consumption in
Australia had increased by eight per cent and our production had
only increased by four per cent so we had, right across the board
Peter, in the area of housing, in the area of other investment,,
in the area of consumption more generally, we had to tighten
monetary policy, lift interest rates so that we brought down the
overall level of activity, in housing included because if we
hadn't done that Australia would have continued to have a leveL
Of imports which was simply unsustainable. And Peter it wasn't
as though we didn't have the other two arms of policy fairlir
tight that is fiscal policy, for the fourth successive year mfp
government as distinct from the blatantly dishonest advertising
that I saw on television last night from Professor Hewson where,
he said we weren't cutting government expenditure. We've done
what's never been done before, four successive years of real
reductions, a seventeen billion dollar surplus, so that we were|
doing our bit there to try and help the savings exercise. And,,
as you know, restrain wages policy, we still had to tighten
monetary policy. The important point for the future Peter, is
this. That as a result of the tough decisions we've taken, and
which you have shared in and I acknowledge the hardshipi
involved, the banking system itself is now saying that and
that interest rates will be coming off under the governmentus
policies straight after the election. But the alternative Peter,
i that with a wages blow-out and the blowing of the budget
surplus which is involved in Peacock's policies, there must be
not Just a maintenance of high interest rates but a further
increase. Those are the unavoidable facts.
TIERNEYs Thank you very much Peter. And it's interesting that
we haven't had any calls on the MFP, on the Multi-Function Polis,
very interesting indeed. Good morning Reg.
CALLERs Cueod morning Prime Minister.
PMi__ Good morning Reg.
-7
CALLERt I would have to preface my question by saying that Itm ak
f if ty-three year old chap who at the moment is unemployed,, and
who is currently bottling with his mortgage interest rates, 3:
want to ask you since I've been a Labor supporter for all og my
life, I ask you simply this how this time around Can you expect~
Me to support you yet again?
PM: Well Rego very simple. What you've got to ask yourself, i:
Ugues, in not just the past but the future, and so Itll just
" efor brief ly to the past which you raise and I'll refer to the
Vast as a basis for looking to the future which in important for
you. Reog when I came to office in 1963, in the previous twelvci
months there had been an increase of a quarter of a million in,
the level of unemployed in Australia and we had a situation where
there wasl the best part of eleven Oer cent of our population
unemployed. Since I've been in office Reg, I've created jobai
with my colleagues at a rate unheard of before in this country,
and more than twice as fast an the rest of the world, fiLve timer;
faster than the conservativ es, and twice as fast as the rest of~
the world. Now that's what we've dones and I'm saying for the
future, which is important for you# that under the policies of my
government growth will continue, more jobs will be created
whereas you have the certainty under Mr. Peacock of a wage;
explosion and a destruction of the budget surplus which wil.
destroy the economy. They destroyed it at the beginning of thel
1980a because they had wrong economic plicies, and they havet
exactly the same prescription nov. And leot me say in regard toi
you in Tasmania, what you need to ask yourself is this questionnow
can you possibly vote for Mr. Peacock who in terms of hi. s
commitment to take billions of dollars out of the revenue which
would be available for helping you in Tasmania and taking
billions of dollars out of the Commonwealth revenue and shovingr
it into the pockets of the wealthiest in this country, the
wealthiest one per cent and loe of the population. To help pal,
to do that he's going to take another fifteen point seven million
dollars off the Commonwealth grants to Tasmania. In my case)
every promise I've made in this campaign I've funded by my own
savings, not another cent of f the states, But you in Tasmania,
and every listener In Tasmania should remember this -you will,
have fifteen point seven million dollars taken off you by Mr.
Peacock to help him shove billions of dollars into the pockets of'
the-wealthiest one per cent.
TIERNEYs Thank you very much Rego and good morning Fred. / 64h..
e
CALME: Good morning Judy# good morning Bob. I'mD oeventy-six
yare of age Bob, not a member of any political party. Wq'ves
formed a group consisting of retired bankc managers, investment
officers etcetera, and we've come down strongly in favour of you
continuing in government, Bob, Andrew Peacock stems to me to ba
cutting everything. He wants to cut the ABC in expenditure and
sell to private enterprises Medicare cuts, the rich may opt out
therefore there'd be no funding and it would collapse. Social
Security, cuts in expenditure# pensioners and those most in needi
will suffer. Rnvironment out down our children's forests.
Nothing on export$* And I'm worried on preferences* Bob, peoplo
should take care I think, voting iIG or Democrats# return tho
votes to Labor. What do you comment on that Bob?
PMs Fred# thank you very much for your comments. Can I pick up
the major point in one sense. I think you nay that you'rel
seventy-six years of aeand you're talking in some sense not
just on behalf of the olerly but obviously you're concerned
about the nexct generation by your reference to the environment.,
Can I just make this point in regard to our senior citizens Prod,,
that would reflect your concern. I guess again as regard to the
previous listener, if you're going to make some Judgement Fred,
about the alternative parties, that is my Labor Party in thei
Government, or the conservatives, an a senior citizen you'd need
to ask yourself well what did they do when they were ifk
Government for seven years# wehat did they do? Well I'll1 tell You
what they did. They cut, they cut, and deliberately cut the real
value of the pension by two and a half per cant. s They had the
opportunity of giving substance to their rhetoric of concern
about senior citizens but in seven years they deliberately out;
the purchasing power of the pension by two and a half per cent.
In my seveni years I've increased it by over seven per cent,
between seven and eight per cent, in real terms i've increased
its value. And as a result of the increase to the pension that'si
coming in next month, that's already legislated for, the pension
will become over twenty-five per cent of average weekly earnings
which will be the highest proportion the pension will have had of'
average weekly earnings for more than forty years. So Fred on
that area you are absolutely right to have this concern. Now,
going to the last point you made Pred,, about preference votes.
Agaigj you're absoLutel y right. I can understand Fred, as no
doubtr you can, that if there is a person who really wants to cast
a vote about environmental issues for instance, that they would
cast their vote for a candidate who they think has that as their
overwhelming concern. But in the end if you are concerned about
PM conts the environment then you've got to make sure that your
Preference goes to the party which has the best record and the
best policy on the environment, and there is no doubt where that;
is because on every major decision that my Government has made in
Tasmania to save the Franklin, in Queensland to save the
rainforestu, the Daintree rainforests, from logging, to save thu
Kakadu from mining, to save the tall forests of Tasmania, onr
every single one of those decisions we have been vehemently
opposed by the Opposition so Fred, you're absolutely right.,
People who want to vote their first preference for art
environmentally inclined candidate they must give their effective
vote, their second preference to Labor otherwise they will bie
voting against their own Interests.
TIERNEYs Thank you very much Fred, and good morning Lance, 3:
believe you're a pensioner. So what do you think of the PM1
comments? CALLERt Yes I'm an invalid pensioner and, well what I think of
him I've already voted by post and I voted for Labor. I know
TIERNEYs But have you got a question? Have you got a question
for the PX Lance?
CALLIRi Yel. You've promised that a time will come when
pensioners wont pay tax at all. Does this Include tax on savings
accounts? PMt The'position is quite clear Lance, and I thank you for your
question. By the next year eighty per cent of people who are in
receipt of pension or part pension will pay no tax and you have
the com! itment of the Government which we announced last year
that by 1995 no person in receipt of a pension or part pension
will pay any tax. No pensioner or part pensioner will pay any
tax Lance.
CALLERs That includes savings accounts?
PM: Any person in receipt of a pension, pension or part pension,
will not pay tax.
CALL Ms No tax at all,
PM: That's the commitment.
TIERNEY; Good morning Vin.
CALLER: Good morning Judy, Prime Minister. Vin Barron,
Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce
PM: Yes, Vin.
CALLER: Prime minister, it appears that Government is
desperate for cash. I refer to small business and
taxation arnd you have imposed required companies to pay
percent of their tax 28 days after the end of their
financial year, that will cause between two billion and
two and a halt billion to be taken out of circulation on
28th July. That, to our reading will put more pressure
on interest rates to rise and that is in fact if small
businesses are able to borrow the money and we can say in
Tasmania there are many small companies who will not be
able to do so, but who will go out
TIERNEY: Vin, yin, I think the PM knows what you are
talking about.
CALLER 85 percent in 28 days and reintroduce
quarterly company tax payments.
PM: Vin, let me, I understand your question, let me go
to the various ramifications of it. It is-true, as you
say, that we have introduced changes which will require
business to pay their, to meet their tax obligation
somewhat earlier than they had before but I make these
points about it. Firstly, you will still have an
advantage over individual taxpayers in, in terms of the
delay that you will have which is not available to
individual taxpayers, individual taxpayers pay as they
earn, businesses will still have a period of grace. Now,
come on, Vin, lot me answer the question please. And as
far as international comparisons are concerned,
Australian business will be still relatively advantaged
compared to what the situation in most overseas countries
is. Now thirdly, in regard to impact upon interest
rates, these things have been taken into account by all
that are making their predictions about interest rate
impact and the fact is that the banking industry is
making it quite clear, Vin, making it absolutely clear,
that their assessment is on the basis or the policies of
this Government that interest rates will fall after the
eler~ tion. And that is because, Vin, of two basic
factors. One, that the policies that we've had in place
before have achieved their result. In other words, we're
getting a slowing down of the economy which means that we
can therefore ease rates and the second thing is, of
course, is that the cost of money to the banking system
has been reduced since the early part of this year. so
the assessment that has been made by the banking industry
is the correct assessment, and that is that interest
rates will fall.
CALLER: Banks here in tact, small businesses have been
told that the banks are concerned that they will not be
able to either lend them additional money because they're
in so far now or the banks soe problem with it, but
the fact of the matter is that most of the small
businesses just will not be able to and secondly the
delay that business has in collecting its money. I mean,
this isn't taken into account, it is taken into account
in reintroducing quarterly payments.
PH: All I'm saying to you, Vin, is that, as you know,
and you're not disputing what I'm saying, is that
business will still have a period of grace and they're
not required to pay their tax immediately. That is, that
is an indisputable fact and it is also true that compared
with the rest of the world, Australian business, in terms
of the time when they have to meet their tax obligation,
is favourably treated.
TIERN4EY: Thanks Prime Minister and thank you Vin. And
now to Mark in Devonport. Good morning, Mark.
CALLER: Good morning, Mr Hawke.
PH: Morning, Mark.
CALLER: My question is the largest problem in the world
is overpopulation. our representatives to the world
forum, what's your opinion of this problem?
PM: well Mark, it is undoubtedly true that one of the
major elements in the growth environmental problems,
like the growth of Greenhouse emissions is a function of
the rapid increase in the world population and that is a
fact which is acknowledged by all the people who have
been engaged in research in this area. I don't dispute
that and indeed programs are being undertaken in many
countries to, to try and get a reduction in the rate of
g rowth of the world's population. In India, for
instance, I could just give you some pretty dramatic
illustrations of this, of the dimension of the problem.
Their annual population increase now is more than the
total population of Australia and they are pursuing
policies there to try and restrict that rate of
population growth and try and reach a point of stability.
But that is some way ahead. Now, as far as Australia is
congerned, I don't think it follows that because there is
a population problem for the world as a whole that that
means we should say that our population of 17 Million in
Australia is all that we should have. r mean, we are a
very, very large continent. We have vast natural
resources and I believe that there is a capacity to
increase the population of Australia. So I think you've
got to put it into two different categories. There is
without question, a problem about explosion or population
in the world as a whole it doesn't mean, necessarily,
that we haven't got room to increase our population in
Australia.
CALLER: world's population is going to increase or
double in about five or ton years time?
PH: No, not in, no, that's getting your, your geometric
progressions in a rather explosive factor, but it is the
case that we will be doubling the population in, in a
period. I mean, if the present trend. were to continue
in a period which wouldn't be, wouldn't be congenial I
mean, it is the case that, as I say, all science
concerned with it attribute the population explosion as
one of the most significant factors in the growth of the
Greenhouse effects and the problems that is causing for
the rest of the world.
TIERNEY: And thank you mark. Now we've got the calls
banking up here so could you please keep your questions
and answers very short?
PM: Sure.
TIERNEY: And Jackie. Good morning.
CALLER: G'day. You've changed your damning statement of
last election to no child has to live in poverty in the
19905. of* tell me why my two children still only have a
week growth in budget and I what I can do to
alleviate it?
PM: Well, Jackie, let's get the facts right and then
ve'll get the facts also about what I've done about it.
The facts are that on the same day, not subsequently
changed, so please get your facts right. On the same day
in 1987 my policy speech, in the statement that was
released, the statement was released, simultaneously with
my speech, the words were there, spelt out in full.
There will be no financial need for a child to live in
poverty. Fact two
CALLER: I'll accept that, but
PH: Well, fact two, fact two, Jackie
CALLER: ( inaudible)
PM: fact two let me go, go to the facts. The three
major organisations in the community concerned with this
ar6. i of welfare have said that the Prime Minister's
financial pledge has been delivered. Pact three, that
under the delivery of that pledge over $ 2 billion per
annum is being paid out to low income families. Fact
four, what that means, that national aggregate term, let
me give you what it means in terms of a low income
family. A low income family where the single income is
$ 320 a week with three children, it means that that
family is receiving, under my policies, $ 110 a week tax
free, which is equivalent to a wage increase of $ 170 a
week. And that is why the Brotherhood of St Laurence,
the Australian Council of Social Services and the
Australian Institute of Family Studies have said and
asserted last year that the Prime Ministerial promise has
been delivered.
CALLER: Mr Hawke, my family is definitely a low income
family, we have $ 190 a week to live on and I have two
children. Nov you can't tell me that that
PM: I an telling, I0ll tell you exactly what you get,
I'll tell you exactly what you get from here, from the
studio, without the figures I'll tell. What are the
age of your two children? You tell me the age of your
two children, so I'll tell you what you get per week?
CALLER: 1, 1
PM: you tell me what the ages of your children are,
Jackie, and 1011 tell you what you get?
CALLER: nine. I know what I get.
PM: Well, what are the ages of your children and I0ll
tell you what you get.
CALLER: Five and nine.
PM: Well, I'll tell you, Jackie, that for those two
children, five and nine, for each of them you'd get an
amount of $ 24.15 a week for each of them, which is, you
get under, just under $ 50 a week tax free in respect of
those two kids.
TIERNEY: What's your income Jackie?
CALLER: My total income, including what Mr Hawke just
stated, my child allowance supplement, is $ 190 a week.
TIERNEY: not a lot to live on is it Jackie?
CALLER: It's not a lot to live on, no. I have two
mortgages to pay, I gave up my rent allowance in order to
buy my house so that I could be a little bit self
sufficient and, as I say, I lost my rent allowance in the
effort now I pay rates and taxes instead.
PM:, You're paying two mortgages, Jackie?
CALLER: Paying two mortgages.
PM: You're paying
TIERNEY: Why two mortgages?
CALLER: Paying two mortgages
PH: Jackie, just let's get this straight then. You're
paying two mortgages, two mortgages of f.
CALLER: Pardon.
PM: You're paying two mortgages a week off?
CALLER: I'm paying off two mortgages.
PM: How much, how much do you pay on the mortgages?
CALLER: I pay a total of $ 134 a fortnight of f my
mortgages, both of them.
PM: So two mortgages a week. So that's 75, that's $ 77 a
I'm sorry, $ 67 a week you pay in mortgages.
CALLER: That's right. It's more than I was paying rent,
that I got a rent allowance to help me with.
PN: You certainly get a rent allowance. You get a, you
Vief t yoau rweenrt, e urnednetri ngo urp ripvoaltiecliye, s , yoyuo ug ogto t a ar ernetn t alallolwoawnacnec. e
CALLER: Yes, when I was renting privately I got a rent
allowance. PM: Of course you did.
CALLER: taken away as soon as I bought a home.
PM: Well, if you'd bought a home and, and you've got
your home, by definition Jackie, an allowance which is
paid to a person renting privately, by definition,
doesn't apply. I meant you weren't expecting it as well
as paying the highest amount ever that any Government's
ever paid in child allowances and that where we were
paying also an additional allowance to persons renting
privately, that you should be allowed to keep the private
rent allowance if you'd bought a house. You're not
suggesting that are you?
CALLER: Mr Hawke, that is exactly what happened to New
Zealand.
TIERNEY: Jackie interested in what happens in New
Zealand. Look, we've got a number of calls. I think
Sou ' ye had a fairly good go there and we go now to Helen
nJLaunceston. Morning Helen.
CALLER: Morning. Good morning Mr Hawke.
PM4: Good morning Helen.
CALLER: Unfortunately the coalition has only recognised
prior to this election that there are women in the
community and that we have needs and that we have a real
voice at the next election held next, on Saturday. My
question is that I recognise what's been done by the
Labor Party through RoB Kelly and Sue Ryan. I just ask
a-a~ ayou
Prime minister for a continued commitment to provide
retraining opportunities for women who wish to return to
the workforcet to retain the family allowance and to
continue with the commitment that you've already shown.
TIERtNEY: That's two questions, Helen. Perhaps just a
PM: I give you that commitment, Helen, and let me, let
me make this point that there are two principles Helen,
and may I say Judy to you and all your listeners, there
are two principles that have driven as and my colleagues
in our attitude to our, our policies for women. one is
social justice and social equity. I mean, it is
absolutely intolerable that we should have a society that
I should have inherited to Government in 1983 where there
were barriers to women in employment and the range of
occupations which they could fill. So it was socially
intolerable that 50 percent of the population should have
these barriers against them. So, that's been..
Secondly, there's also a question of economic good sense.
This country was not making it possible to tap into the
great talents of 50 percent of the population and so
we've done all the sort of things that you've talked
about, Helen, and I give you that continuing commitzent.
But in, in a continuing sense, into the future, I think
the most important thing that we're doing, Helen, is that
we're ens~ yng, in cooperation with the States, the whole
education system is going to be transformed so that when
a girl goes to school she will be confronted with the
same opportunities throughout her educational life to be
trained and equipped for any vocation or profession or
calling that she wants to follow. I mean, what Australia
has to understand is that of course women are going to
find their fulfilment, in one sense, in being the wife
and mother, some of them that's all they will want to
do and that should be respected but increasingly in our
Australian society and in the rest of the world, women
are also seeing their opportunity for fulfilment in doing
as well as that, also having jobs in the paid workforce.
And as a concerned and intelligent society we must pursue
policies which are going to enable them to do that. And
we will.
TIERNEY: Thank you very much, Helen. Good morning,
Steve. CALLER&* Good morning, Sue.
TIERNEY: Judy actually.
PM: Good morning Steve.
CALLER: Good morning Bob. Look I'd like to take you
away from the very important things you've been talking
about to something which is important in a different way.
OTC is closing down quite a number of marine radio
stations. Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Brisbane.
Eugene Alexander has given a commitment to have this
decision reviewed and to prevent the closure of the
Hobart marine radio station which, if it is closed, will
threaten the safety of Tasmania's many, many fishermen
and even more pleasure boat
TIMRNEY: Yes, so what's your question, Steve?
CALLER: Well, will the Prime minister confirm that a
review of this action would be taken especially for
Hobart and would he try to please prevent this happening?
PH: Steve, I, V1ll be quite honest. I wasn't aware or
that decision that you're talking about of closing down
these. I will give you the undertaking that I will
certainly personally undertake to have a look at what the
factual situation is. I will certainly ask for a review
of it to be qiven. I mean, if that decision has been
taken I'll ask for the reasons and if I'm not persuaded
that there are compelling reasons, I would ask for it to
be changed.
0 TIERNEY* Has been a big issue down here Mr Hawk. and it
does, on the surface at least, seems to put fishermen
especially at risk in some or our waters around the
coast. PM: Well, yes, well that's not something that on its face
I find acceptable. But, Steve, I always try to be
absolutely honest in these things. what I'm say to you
so you understand what I'm committing myself to. I'M
committing myself to become acquainted with, I'll be
asking to be told what the facts are and I'll indicate
that prima facie I'm not happy about it and unless I can
be satisfied that there are the compelling reasons for
doing it, I would ask for the decision to be changed.
CALLER: Well, thank you very much.
TIERNEY: If the decision isn't changed, fishermen will
have to spend I think it's six to eight thousand dollars
per boat to tap into the system.
CALLER: And
PM; Steve, you can be assured that I will have the
question looked at.
CALLER: Thank you.
TIERNEY: Thank you very much Steve. Good morning Joyce.
CALLER: Good morning. Good morning Mr Prime minister.
PH: Good morning Joyce.
cAUME: I'm an old age pensioner.
PM: Yes.
CALLER: paying a mortgage Of f. NOW I am paying off
$ 267 a fortnight out of pension. Now with mortgage
and rates, that's $ 118 a fortnight goes out of that,
which does not leave me very much to live on with, by the
time you buy your food, you pay your telephone
TIEIRNEYz So what's your question Joyce?
CALLER: what I want to know, is a Labor Government
ina the future, intend those people who can't help
themselves by putting a roof over their heads,
particularly if they're on a pension.
PH: Joyce, I mean, I hope you were listening to what I
said earlier. The, the performance of this Government in
the seven years we've been in office has been quite
outstanding. Look at the things that we've done. I
contrasted it with what happened before where they
slashed the real value of the pension. we've increased
it by about eight percent, increased the real purchasing
power of the pension. When we came to office, the
pension, as a proportion of average weekly earnings was
22.7 percent. Now, next month, as a result of the
decisions already taken, that will go to over 25 percent
of average weekly earnings which, Joyce, will be the
highest proportion that the pensioners had of average
weekly earnings in more than 40 years. In addition to
that, as you would have heard me say, we've also made
arrangements for additional entitlements where people
are renting privately and we've also moved to a situation
Where by 1995 no person in receipt of a pension or part
pension will be paying any tax. Against that record of
unsurpassed achievement you have a situation where Hr
Peacock has got unfunded promises of about $ 7 billion
which include, may I say, this sort of proposition,
Joyce, that they'll take billions of dollars out of their
own revenues which would be available to assist the aged,
to shove those billions of dollars into the pockets of
the wealthiest one percent in the population so that that
will take it away from a capacity to help you.. In
addition, I'll tell you what their tax policy is and I
would hope that all the people in Tasmania would, would
note this and understand the significance of it. They
are promising to change the tax system to bring in what
they are pleased to call a flatter rate two tiered
sy stem. And what that means that Hr Peacock, as Prime
Minñ ster, would give himself a cut of over $ 100 a week in
tax and that a person on average weekly earnings, at
about $ 28,000, a cut of$ 4,73, In other words, he'd give
himself $ 100 a week greater tax cut than he would to the
average person out there. So whether you're an aged
person or a person in employment, what you see is the
stark picture of a group of conservatives dedicated to
increasing the privileged the few in this country at
the expense of the many, including the pensioners of
Australia.
TIERNEY: Thank you Joyce, and Prime minister, do you
have time for one more call?
PM: Just one more, yes, thank.
TIERNEY: Good morning, Beryl, you're the lucky last.
CALLER: Good morning Judy, good morning Hr Hawke.
PH: Good morning Beryl.
CALLER: I am, I've just been made a war widow, but
I've just discovered that I'm 40 percent better off under
a Labor Government. it was something I'd never searched
into
TIERNEYs So what's you question, Beryl?
CALLER: The question is, as I am petrified of a
coalition government wrecking what was once a marvellous
hospital care, not for me, but for mine.
PH: Well, thanks, Beryl. I can assure you that as far
as I'M~ concerned, personally and my Government, we have a
total and continuing commitment to those of our veterans
community and I0m pleased to say that Sir William Keys,
who was the head of the RSL for so long and a man with
whom I established a close working relationship, has, has
said that the record of this Government is outstanding in
this area. And as far as the veterans community is
concerned, let me say this that I give an unqualified
commitment to keeping the, the Ministry of Veterans
Affairs as a separate, as a separate portfolio and that
as far as the hospitals are concerned, we will continue
to ensure that they provide a, a basis for giving the
service that all members of the veterans and their widows
need. It's been for me a matter of continuing concern
because Ilia a soft touch in this area, Beryl, as every
member of my cabinet will tell you. My late father was a
chaplain in the Hollywood Repatriation Hospital for a
period of some 30 years and so I grew up, as a child,
knowing the importance of what our community owes to our
veterans tour veterans themselves and to those
dependent upon them. So you have my continuing
commitment, Beryl.
TIEB1NEY: Thank you Beryl. And you say you're a bit of a
softie, Prime minister, you got the, got a touch of the
last minute nerves this week?
PM: No, not nerves. I'm neither cocky nor complacent,
Judy. 1, I have tried my hardest in this campaign to do
the two things that I think I have to do. I think what
Australians want of their Prime Minister in a campaign is
two things. They want him to tell them what the policies
are, why he's done the things he has and what he promises
for the future of this country. I've tried to do that.
I think they also expect me to expose what I see as the
V inadequacies of the Opposition. I've tried to do that,
but overall my campaign has been a, a deliberately
positive one in which I have been available at all times
to answer questions that anyone, including the media,
want to put to me. r hope I've done that well. I feel
confident without being cocky.
TIERNEYz Well thanks much for spending time with us.
PH: It's been a great pleasure Judy. Thank you to you
and your listener&.
ends.
0-