PRIME MINISTER
INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY CORDEAUX, MACQUARIE RADIO 5DN, ADELAIDE
18 APRIL 1984
E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
Cordeaux: You must be happy with the Bulletin popularity polls
PM: Obviously you would be quite dishones8t if you
didn't say that you were happy every politician wants to tie liked,
and not only politicians, we all like to be liked. It is satisfying,
it does seem to indicate that people like your style of government,
your approach to government.
Cordeaux: I have read that it is particularly important to
you, to be liked. Would you say that is true?
PM: I don't think it is any more important to me than
it is to anyone else. Of course I like to be liked, I haven't met
anyone who doesn't. There might be the odd masochist in the world
who gets some perverse pleasure out of' being disliked. But I: think
it's notan unusual characteristic for me to be liked.
Cordeaux: Does it make making the hard decisions more
difficult. Because you can't be popular all the time.
PM: I dislike that insinuation. I've always in my life,
been prepared to take the tough decisions, if' I believe they've been
right. In politics if you're going to be effective, in leadi~ ng a
government, in leading a country like this, it's obviously sensible
to try and get the greatest degree of acceptance and understanding
because it's not just the making of the decisions that is important,
it's the carrying through of the decision, end the decision is going
to be carried through more effectively if you've got a greater degree
of understanding as you possibly can, arid that for example, was my
reasoning in regard to the Assets Test, I decided there that we werer'
going to walk away from the principle but it was quite clear that ther
was a degree of misunderstanding about what-we were seeking t: o do,
and there was also within the proposals that we had the possiLbility
for some confusion and inequity. So 1 decided we would refer that
to a committee of people in good standing and experience in the
community so that we would be able in giving effect to that decision
later on, to have a greater degree of understanding. Now that's not
to me a sign of weakness, it's a sign of, if I may say so, good sense,
because in the end it will mean that a genuinely necessary decision,
which incidentally I noticed in this morning's paper was endorsed by
major employer organisation, will. operate more effectively.
Cordeaux; Has that been the toughest decision? What has been
the toughest?
PM: No. Well, my mate Mick Young, last year, having
to accept his resignation at that. time'. Nov that was very tough at
the time, but Mick has come back magnificantly, he's strong In the
House, he's strong in the Cabinet, he's doing a tremendous job, but
at the time because of the closepness of our association, it was
very hard.
2. Cordeaux: If there is one thing that marks your Prime
Ministership, I think is style. It pleases me, but I think there
are probably people in the community, in your party, who don't li. ke
you style, your presidential style of leadership, what would you say
of that. You've got the figures, the 75% popularity to prove..
PM:. Let me say about there maybe some who s8ay
they don't like the style but if they are members of parliament,
they'll be very, very happy to get the residual benefit at any time
of an election. They won't be asking me not to come to theireiectorate.
CordeauxY What about the people who do resent your style,
and maybe even resent your success, within your own party I mean.
PM: We're becoming a much more united and cohesive
party, it may have something to do with perceptions about approaiching
election times in some people's minda, but, no sepiously, in a SOCial
democratic party like ours is, all aver the world', you have p( 4ople,
it's an umbrella type organisation, conservative party's are too
to some extent, or marked perhaps in social democratic party, people
who want to do things perhaps a bit more quickly than others, or
who have particular issue which obsesses them almost, and if you're
not doing exactly what they want on a particular issue, they get a
bit annoyed. But it's quite clear, you've referred to the poll this
morning, I guess, in one sense that the very satisfying part of that
is that it shows 94% of Labor voters, support the way I am going
about things, so I guess you've got to put these things in perspective,
and if there's a few who don't there is a hell of a lot more who do.
Cordeaux: About security problems, that obviously existed
yesterday, I saw you arrive by car at the side entrance and being
whisked away with great drama it must cause concern to everybody
in Canberra that that parcel with the potential to be real,
managed to get inside Parliament House. There's great security
around you today, can you still function happily with people..
PM: Let's get this into perspective. One of the great
features about Australia is that I as Prime Minister, can move around
amongst lO0s, l000s of people. The other day in Newcastle where
the estimate was 5,000 people in the mall, I moved around amongst
them. Hardly anyother democracy in the world where that happens with
a minimum people around me and protection. One of the great
strengths of Australia that we have the capacity for real freedom
like that, and I don't have any sense of inhibition by security.
We have a small group of dedicated and very efficient people attached
to me, who are unobstrusive. But going to the point of Parliament
House, I have to confess there is some concern, for instance, iveLve
had the occasion earlier last year where people in the gallery were
able to throw stuff down, harmless what they throw down
Cordeaux: You were assulted here in Adelaide, somebody
managed to get close enough to throw a projectile at you.
PM: And hit me with it, yeah sure. Well frankly in
that respect I think there was a little inefficiency was involved
here, that there had been some warning that there were going to be
some people there, it was either inefficiency or it was the normal
quote of police, watching against what they had warning of.
.3/
Cordeaux: At night, do you think about your own safety.
PM: No, I can honestly say it, is not a matter that:
occupies my mind.
Cordeaux: Let me ask you about anti-uranium march, the o3LZ'd,
of that demonstration throughout Australia, did it surprise you'?
PM: No not really. When you describe it as an ant~ i
uranium march, the emphasis was much more on disarmament and the
threat and the problems of nuclear war. And I understand those
concerns, I share them. It doesn't surprise me those sorts of
numbers. There was certainly an element of anti-uranium but of
course a lack of logic in identifying the question of mining or
not mining uranium with the question of disarmament. Not only a
lack of logic but there is an internal contradiction. The only
relevant instrument in the international relations between countries
which is effectively directed towards preventing the spread of
nuclear weapons and providing more safeguards in the use of..
the non proliferation treaty, and that is central to the policy the
Labor Party adherence to the non proliferation treaty. Now Article 4
of that treaty, which the supporters of disarmament embrace, article 4
of that treaty imposes an obligation to make available to all
developing countries the capacity For the peaceful use of nuclear power.
Cordeaux: Dr Helen Caldicote says it doesn't workl it will
find its way into bombs
PM: With respect to Dr Caldicote she has not assisted
rational debate in this country. Anyone who watched her, and I am
not attacking her personally, she has a an emotional feeling about
this, I respect that, it is simply irrational to equate the mining
of uranium, I simply repeat my point. If you had the non-proliferation
treaty as a central instrument in preventing this threat of nuclear
weapons and under that treaty, article 4 there is an obligation
imposed upon countries to supply the capacity for peaceful use of
nuclear power. Then you see logical contradiction of identifying
the mining of uranium with the question of weaponary, and of course
there is other misinformation, saying we supply uranium to
the Phillipines, we don't.
Cordeaux: She has also said you are a dangerous man.
PM: Yea, she got here and said that, and seemed to
get some advice that that wasn't very sensible thing to say, and
at the rally she had me as a possible saviour of the world. Now,
she was a bit exaggerated on both accounts.
Cordeaux: In tandem with that uranium debate, the sons! ' tive
issue of American bases on Australian soil. It has been said that
Pine Gap could be a nuclear target, you're Foreign Affairs Minister
Bill Hayden seems to have broken some new ground this morning, by
admitting that one of the three key US installations is a high priority
9.4/
PM: Bill hasn't broken any new ground there. This
sort of thing has been conceded before. But let's be quite clear
about it. We are an aligned nation, and have been since the last
war. It was a Labor Government that forged the alliance with the
United States, and Labor and non-Labor Governments without
interruption since the Second World War have maintained that alliqp ce
relationship. Now obviously it is true that if you're in an a1: 1iace
relationship and provide facilities to the major partner in that:
alliance, United States, then that carries risks$ of course it: does,
and it would be dishonest to say otherwise. But in this world
there is nothing that doesn't carry risks, and the judgement hat3
bean made by successive governments, Labor and non Labor alike, that
the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. The most simpliatic
approach to this issue is to assume that if Australia and the rest
of the non Soviet block were to disarm, that that brings world peace.
There is no evidence to sustain that at all, we would be running
greater risks. W
Cordeaux: Are you embarrassed that Bill Hayden has..
obviously pointed to the north-west..
PM: Of course I am not embarrassed. He has not said
anything new in that respect. Anyone who knows anything about wuorld
strategic balance, has known that in respect of these bases it
has been said before, Bill was just in the context of' an important
speech that he was making, and re-emphasising that point, nothing
new about it.
Cordeaux: So the bases will stay, and we will live up to
our side of the alliance.
PM: We certainly will. We are not going to indulge
in the stupidity of assuming that unilateral neutrality and disarmament
is going to add to world peace,. it is likely to add to instability.
If I could see in the Soviet Union marches of millions of people,
demonstrating disarmament, then this whole thing would have more
impact. What we've got to do, and what we have done, we've done
more in our year in office than any government in the history of
this country, is to work sensibly for disarmament. Not unilaterally
but across the board. I'm proud of the fact that in November of
last year, in the United Nations first committee, which is the
committee dealing with disarmament, an Australian resolution which
New Zealand sponsored with us, was carried. We were able to persuade
the United States which veto, the previous year vetoed that, by
voting against it. They abstained. Now that means there will be
a year ' s work done there sensibly, addressing both sides of the d'uper
power conflict, and try in that way, to get a -reduction in the level
of nuclear and conventional armament. Now that's the way, if you're
sensible, you go about things.
Cordeaux: Can you ever see a time when you would order the
construction or the development of nuclear weapons?
PM: No, I can't see that. That's as I see the world.
Neither Bob Hawke nor anyone else, for ever, into every conceivable
circumstance, whether you're talking about this Issue or anything
else, exactly what you would do. All I can say is, that as far
as I'm concerned, it wouldn't happen, I can't eee that it would aidd
to Australia's capacity to try and add to the possibility of amoe
peaceful world, it's not on our agenda.
Cordeaux: Have you heard anything about the sub base thai:
South Australia has been trying to get and sub construction,
it would be a target though
PM: If you're building them *. in this world if you
take on, whether it's in politics or anything else, if you
say you won't do anything because there's a possible risk in doing
it., then we would still be in the caves. We as a government, are3
looking at the question of' the building of uubmarines, in Australia,
replacement submarines, A number of States are interested in having
this facility ordered to them to do that work. John Bannon I muist
say to his credit, has been extraordinary vigorous in pushing the
case of South Australia. Now, I can't commit my government at this
stage, who will get the contract, all of this will be examined, but
South Australia could certainly not have had a more vigorous advocate
than John Bannon in pushing of the case.
Cordeaux: Seems to be a choice between Newcastle and South
Australia. PM: Robin Grey also put in a bid from Tasmania. The
Western Australians could be interested, and certainly Queensland
is interested, so just about every state.
Cordeaux: Could it be suggested that we need it more?
PM: I'm sure if you're in South Australia you would
see the case as being overwhelming for South Australia. But I
understand it's particular position because you've had a falling
off of employment in the vehicle industry and it would be very
useful to be able to, to the extent that there is some continuing
reduction of the motor vehicle industry in South Australia, if that
was to occur, then you've got people with the training, experience
and qualifications. So I understand that arguement, and that's one
of the facts that will be taken into account.
Caller: The bomb threat to you in Parliament House, I
was just wondering how did they feel after leaving Parliament Houee
under that sort of threat.
PM: I don't know how the others felt but I am not
affected by these things, I not trying to sound brave or anything,
it is just a fact of life. I think if you get worried about these
sorts of issues, you're just not going to do you job effectively.
I have basic confidence in the security forces and police, that they
will do their job to the best-of the ability. As I said before,
compuared with many other countries in the world, we are fortunate.
I think there are some people in the community who perceive advantage
in playing these things up. I think it is beat that they be given
as little publicity as possible, I think they tend to perhaps excite
some people to action.
// 6
PM: In regard to Parliament House, there perhaps
needs to be a review to see whether security there can be tightened
up somewhat, because you've got the basic problem that parliament
is the house of the people, it's where their affairs are being
discussed, and you really want to have 8 situation where people can
8s freely as possible go into, see that parliament. Particularly
when it is operating. Against that desire which I think is very
important. You do also have to sensible and try ensure that liuieO
are not going to be unnecessarily endangered. I think there w il
be a review of the security situation, but I hope that it ia not.
going to result in a situation whore there is going to be any
significant dernanution in the possibility of ordinary Australians
to go into their Parliament.
Caller; I think the potential bomber was feeling like a
lot of Australians do, in that he is threatened with nuclear war.
Especially those people in Alice Springs where they're very cl otie.
to Pine Cap.
PM: I don't want to appear rude, but that is the most
unadulterated nonsense I have every heard in my life. If you have
got the position where you say a person is concerned about a nuclear
war and of death and destructio ' t to people, and that you are going
to express your concern about death and destruction and harm to others
by threatening the lives yourself or other people, now that's a logic
that escapes me absolutely.
Caller: A lot of people are threatened or feel threatened,
and probably like your colleagues in Parliament House they felt
threatened and had to get out of there. It isthe wrong way, and I
don't know why governments any where in the world should went nuclear
weapons. PM: I agree, that is why my government has done more
in the international forums to press for the reduction of nuclear
weaponary and to prevent its spread beyond the five powers that
have that capacity at the moment. All I've been saying is that I
wish people would exercise some logic in distinguishing between
desire, which I have as strongly as anyone in this country, to secure
nuclear disarmament, between that question and the question of
mining and export of uranium for peaceful purposes. They are two
entirely different matters as the central non-proliferation treaty
recognisesa. 2nd Caller: As an ex-serviceman, your now song for Australia
( anthem), when we swore ourselves in as soldiers, we swore allegiance
to Her Majesty the Queen, does this mean we are now going to swore
allegiance to you?
PM: Certainly not. The anthem has nothing to do with
the oath of loyality and I noticed In this morning's paper, they are
desperately discredited and hopeless opposition through the person of
Mr Rosher in Perth, it was suggested that we are going to take the
Royal out of our Royal Australian Navy and our Royal Australian Airforce
.7/
PM: That is totally untrue arid is a measure of the
depths of despair that they hove descended. They are going to
disappear off the Austrlian political scene altogether if they
keep telling lies like that. No it doesn't, effect that at all.
What it means is that Australia, now we are an independence
of a nation, is going to have its own national anthem, as I have
said recently when I announced the decision, I have been appalled
in the past at the time of the Olympics, when you see a situation
where an athelete from Britain gets up and wins a medal, the I6ou
Save the Queen is played, an Australian gets up later and wins a
medal, the same national anthem is played. We are a different
nation to the Brits, I love them and respect them, but we are a
different independence of a nation. 1 want to see the position
when Australians do something they identified as Australians.
When you went to the war, you didn't go there thinking you weren't
fighting for Australia, you were fighting for Aus ralia. Our causes
were also identified with the causes of Britain. Let me remind you,
if' you think back to that period, the great Australian Prime Minister
John Curtin, had a fight with Churchill because Chirchill wanted to
say well we won't worry about Australia'sa war in the Pacific, we'll
keep you here fighting in the middle-east, and when we've fixed
that up if Australia hasn't been gobbled up then, you'll go back then.
John Curtin said look my friend, the primarily obligation of the
Australian Defence Forces is the defence of Australia. Now don't
lets get confused in these things, we as Australians, have a primary
obligation to Australia, not to some other country. They are primarily
responsible for Australia, and in having a national anthem for
Australia, is in no way, implying directly or indirectly that the
oath of loyality to the Queen will not be made. She is remember
this, the Queen of Australia, under the law of this country. She
is the Queen of Australia.
Caller: If an Australian soldier was awarded a medal in
the field of battle, would it be a British Order or is it going to
be an Australian Order.
PM: Up until this time, you've had the situation
where we have used those British Orders, and I must state quite
directly to you, there is a bit of a problem at the moment, for
instance, the Victoria Cross, that is a distinctly British Order
and we've got to keep a situation whore in my judgement, the
opportunity for Australian servicemen in the hopefully unlikely
event that they are going to be in another war that this sort of
tradition and opportunity for them to participate in that is kept
alive. But that is a matter we are looking at, because we
we are not about to destroy traditions, that is a negative approd'ch.
What I and the government want to do within where tradition is
very important, but within that frame work we also want to make! sure
Australian tradition, and the capacity for Australian traditions, is
enhanced, and we've got marry the two things together.
Cordeaux: Just on the subject of Waltzing Matilda, as a
folk song, the Americans couldn't possibly have copyright over it.
see8/ 7
PM: As soon as this raised with mep I have had the
Attorney General's Department working on it, a lot of work here and
in the United States, as soon as it is clarified, the legal position,
and if it emerges that there is some right outside this country and
the United States, I can assure that I will. initiate action to try
and see that it comes back to where it belongs.
Cordeaux: Everyone will agree with that.
Caller: A question about Senator Ryan's proposal foi
affirmative action. Given the fact that 7( 1% of registered unemployed
are men, and we have men leaving the state because they can't get
jobs, I find it to have a proposal whereby we are going to try
and increase the amount of women in the work force. How can you
justify that?
PM: What is involved in the concept~ of the affirmative
action let me say what we are doing. We have prepared what, is
called a green paper, and the difference between a green paper and
a white paper is that a white paper is a way in which government
announces what it is going to do, a green paper is a basis for
discussion. That green paper will now be circulated in the community
and give everyone the opportunity of making submissions of points of
views, and that will lead us into a decision. We are going to have
s joint working party from employers, trade unions and other interested
groups, helping to have a dissemination discussion under the green
paper. Having said that is what going to happen, the concept behind
it is not that you are going to force employers to have a quota,
and increase quota that must be so many women, we are simply going
to be saying it is the fact that about 37% of the work force is
female. If women weren't in the work force, if they withdrew for
some reason, this economy would collapse. They are an important part
of the work force with rights. With equal rights. We can't in this
society say yes we believe in equal rights for all human beings, then
say we don't really believe in it. In particular something like
of the workforce is female, now what we are saying is that historically
women have had lesser opportunities and rights within the workf~ orce
and we're saying in cooperation with larger firMa, that will be
confined to firms employing more than 100 people, that cooperatively
they should seek to improve the opportunity for women to move through
their employment so they are just not confined to particular menial
categories, they have the opportunity to go for any position. That is
an absolutely laudible correct and decent thing to do. It is n~ ot
saying to employers here's a quota that you must have women, it is
recognising that women are equal human-beings to men, they are
entitled to the same rights.
Caller: I disagree...
PM-. If you think as a man you are superior to a women,
you are entitled to that, I don't happen to believe it.
Caller: By equal I mean having the same function. Obviously
the men and women are equal in status, but what I am saying biological
differences.. 0 09/
9. PM: Of course there are biological differences, but
that doesn't mean that because a woman, and what we are talking about
is the women who has the reproductive function of actually bearing
the child, that doesn't mean that she is an inferior person with
lesser rights.
Caller: That fact is often not recognised in these sorts
of policies, the fact that women want easy access into the labor
market and easy access out for that sort of reason. Therefore their
asp irations to get to the top would not be same as men..
PM; How can you possibly from the comfort of your
non-bearing situation make that ascertion or assumption. What do
you know. I don't want to be rude, but the blatant arrogance of
your assumption that you know what women want to ' do, that women
don't want to achieve satisfaction by becoming engineers or top
executives, it is an arrogant assumption that I don't accept.
Caller: It is a matter of degree, obviously the
woman who can do those positions quite well
PM: You say, ' the woman', your condescending attitude
' the woman' that can do those things quite well, you have no quarrel
with. It is total arrogance on your part to assume that some women
may be able to do it, but generally speaking women of course can't
do it as well as men, there is no basis for it. Women in the
history of this world in the areas of science, look in the area of
politics, Mrs Gandhi and Prime Ministers in other areas, aviation,
you can look at science, women have shown that they have the capacity
to do things as well as, and in many cases better than men. It is
a complete contradiction of what I think is fundamental to a democracy
and the end of the 20th century that women have equal rights to men
to put in these assumptions that you do, that we must regard them as
inferior. Let me make one final point, It is imperative that people in
responsibility see those attitudes are not allowed to emerge in a
way in which women are seen to be inferior, they are not. In saying
all those things, the position of my government is one which clearly
respects the wishes of women who see their total sense of fulfillment
in the home and being wives and mothers. That is going to continue
for very many women to represent their total sense of fulfillment
and in nothing that I have said, is there implication that they are
any less deserving of the concern of the community. The role that
they fulfill is an irreplacable one, and is for very many of them,
still totally what they want in terms Of satisfying their aspirations
and ensuring that we do provide for women who want to go into thd'
workforce an equality of opportunity. That-carries no implication
or denegration of those women who don't want to go into the workforce.
Cordeaux: That could be worth a few more points on the
popularity poll. know
PM: I don't if it is worth it or not. I am simply
saying that is what the truth is.
Caller; Talking about equality for women, my question is
when are you going to be fair to the men and give them a pensicon at
or stop the women until 65. 1 worked on until 68 before I glet a
part pension. We worked hard to get our home. Another thing, look
after the old age pensioners.
PM: Let me say this madam, it is recognised by
pensioner organisations of this country that the Labor Party which
is the one political organisation in this country which has moved
towards fairness to pensioners. In the 1970s we were the ones
which set the target of 25% of average earnings to move up the
pension and in government between 72 and 75 we moved to do that
against the opposition of our political opponents. Now that we
are back in office we have started again. We have lifted pensions,
and we will be doing all that we can to lift them again.
Caller: We've got to keep our homes and land,. I get a
part pension of $ 60 a--week. My husband gets nothing because where
he was working at 50,. he had to leave. He is strong and
healthy, he can't get any money at all. We are living out of that
a week, we are having to live on our savings that we saved all
our lives. We have never had a holiday, we put that money asidaq
we are living on our savings now. Quick to the point, look aftatr
the older people.
PM: All I can say is that is precisely what we are
doing, and I am glad to say that has been recognised by welfare
and community organisationa, that is what we have been doing. I
am not avoiding the fact that there is recognition and very glad
to see in today's press a major employer agreed with us. We have
got to make sure that we don't pay pensions to people who absolutely
don't need them, we must avoid double dipping, we should avoid the
situation for instance, a person like myself who has one form of
superannuation, a very generous one, isn't allowed to dip in again
to the public purse because there are those of us in the community
who don't need a public assistance and others who very do need it.
We are going to make sure that we bring about a fairer community
so that those elderly people in the community or have retired and
have made their contribution to our society, are going to get the
assistance they deserve.
Thank you.