E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
JOHN LAWS SHOW 2UE 9 OCTOBER 1984
P. M. : Good morning John. I feel good John.
QUESTION: Well, it is a great day here in Canberra.
QUESTION: Yes, and 28 here. Things are warm.
QUESTION: Yes John.
QUESTION: It is as far as I am concerned John. It is going to be one
in which I concentrate on the issues and explaining what this
Government has done and what the alternative is. I want it -to be
a good clean constructive campaign. It will be as far as I am
concerned. QUESTION: I'll stick to it. I can't speak for my opponents John.
QUESTION: P. M. Well, I hope not. There is some evidence John, that the
Leader of the Opposition and those around him might have slowly
got the message that their smear tactics have been cournterproductive.
And if they have got that message perhaps we will
see a clean campaign.
QUESTION: No, I agree with you. It has been the case I think that
for some time now that the anti-Labor Parties really make a low
assessment of the intelligence of the electorate. I said during
the last Federal Campaign that I thought that they were insulting
the intelligence of the electorate. It was done in a number of
ways. I suppose most spectacularly it was put your money under
the. bed type-of-thing. But there were others-not-V1. it. Mr-Fraser,:, and I~ am
not about attacking him. In fact, I believe that Mr Peacock has 2
t NWt.. fl. 4*
cont: made Mr Fraser look very good. But, there is a
general tendency to try and get onto issues which are about raising
fear and that type of thing. I really believe that the AustraliLan
electorate, which I think is pretty well. represented by your
listening audience. I; think they are interested in basic issues
which concern their welfare, employment opportunities, inflation,
interest rates, what's happening to housing, and those sorts of
things. That's what people are concerned about.
QUESTION: Well, there's a number of reasons John. For a long time
now I have been saying to the people of Australia that I want: to
get a position where we can get an unnecessary number of elections
out of the way, and that I want to clear the uncertainty.
My predecessors always played around and were not coming clean
and saying whether there would be an election or not. So I wanted it
to be established fairly early in the piece that we would have
the House Representatives election with the half Senate, which
under the Constitution we must have. The practice has been
to have the half Senate election at the end of the preceding year.
We would have to have had it by April, so you should have it at
the end of ' 84, have the House of Representatives with it, save
the people an unnecessary extra election. It will be 30 million
to have the two together rather than 49 million having two separate
ones. But, as you know John, as I have said to you before very
importantly, having the referendum with the elections so that they
will give the people the opportunity to say there shall in the
future be simultaneous' elections for the Reps and the Senate.
So that, Prime Ministers in the future won't be able to go calling
unnecessary early elections.
QUESTION: Yes, and if the people will pass the referendum that will
mean that in future Parliaments will run their term, because
Prime Ministers are not going to call unnecessary early elections
-which mean they will have to have the Reps and the Senate
separately, or call double dissolutions and put the whole thing
out of kilter.
QUESTION: I believe so, and I think people don't want unnecessary
extra elections. So, I am saving them one by having these two
together and trying to create the circumstances that we won't
in the future have a repetition of all these unnecessary elections.
QUESTION: Yes John.
QUESTION: I believe not John. Two or three things I would like to
say about it. Firstly of course, again I think that our opponents
insult the intelligence of the electorate. If they think they
are going to mix up NSW and Federal. People know that they are
voting for a Federal election. They are deciding whether they want
a Hawke/ Bowen Government or a Peacock/ Sinclair Government. / 3
1 61
P. M. cont: They understand that. Secondly, I believe that as
we were saying together a little earlier7 I don't think people like
this smear business and this crucifying of people on the basiLs
of unsubstantiated allegations. Let me go specifically to the
question of Neville Wran. I have been asked about it. I simply
want to say this that whether Neville was wise or not wise in
making a statement overseas about Mr Briese, there can be
arguments about that. But there has been an attempt continuously
to smear Wran, suggest that he is crook.. I want to say this,
and I have said it before and I say it again on your program.
I have never had put before me one single piece of evidence which
suggests that there is something going t~ o the integrity of Mr Wran
or his propriety at all. And I am not in the business of running
away from friends and colleagues because they might be going
through a bit of a rough, trot be-cause there are smears and
allegations and innuendos. Until I, until or unless, and I don't
believe it would happen. I simply say, until or unless I go-:
evidence in regard to Mr Wran, or anyone else for that matter,
that there is something improper about t: heir behaviour I am not
running away from them. It has never been my behaviour and I
am not going to start doing it now.
QUESTION:. There may have been some untidiness in some areas, and
all I am saying in respect of any inquiries that are going on
John, whether they be the Costigan inquiry or if it becomes the
National Crimes Authority investigation or Senate investigation
I have said and I repeat, let the cards fall where they may.
I am not in the business of protecting anyone and never will be.
If evidence emerges that some action needs to be taken on the
basis of admissable evidence, we'll let that happen wherever itleads.
QUESTION: Well, I think basically colleagues support him, but I think
over a period of time you can make some assessments about some
people as to whether they are as strong in support as they might
be. You know when Neville was riding the crest of the wave,
everyone wanted to be there on his coat-tails. When you get into
the more difficult periods when mud is slung and some sticks. You
don't find the exuberance and the desire for association on the
part of some people that may have exhibited it earlier. I think
that is significant. Let me say this, there's very few politicians
that have subjected themselves to a royal commission, as Mr Wran
did. And it is very important to understand that he came through
that royal commission, where he was subject to cross-examination
and searching and probing he came through totally honourably.
QUESTION: There have been, now all I am saying about that, the
Senate inquiry is there. It is for the Senate inquiry to conduct
it's investigation listen to the evidence, have it's examination
cross-examination, and for it to make it's findings. And I am
not going in any way to seek to interfere with its processes. / 4
-1 V
QUESTION: Yes, there have been.
QUESTION: Well, I think as I said earlier in the program John, we've
had a classic illustration of it in the: Federal Parliament over
recent weeks. The violence of allegations that were made against me
I can't think of a more vile allegation and that I would protect
people involved in the drug traffic I can't think of anything
more viler than that. Now those allegations and smears and innuendo,
were made. Now, the people have repudiated that approach in that
it's justified the continuing faith tha~ t I have always had in
politics, in the good sense of the Australian people.
QUESTION: They accept that it's on, and Hazel who played a magnificent
part in the last election, will I believe be there shoulder to
shoulder with me in this one.
QUESTION: I don't want to predict those sorts of things. I bel~ ieve
John that we will win, and that we will. win well. I believe! that
the Australian people by a clear majority think that AhstraJlia
at the end of 1984 is a. much better place than the economically stagnant,
socially devisive and confrontationist Australia at the beginning
of 1983. And I think that they will confirm this Government in
office and myself as Prime Minister. Now, I will fight the election.
strongly, and I believe we will get a grood majority, but I don't
want to predict what it will be.
QUESTION: Well, I hope that one of the characteristics I have
demonstrated in public life is a degree! of charity, and I have still
got reserves of that. I can assure I am not getting personal
pleasure out of his difficulties. They are self created to a
very large extent. What the Liberal Party does about its Leadership
John, is a matter for it. I would simply make this observat~ ion
that in the circumstances which you postulate I would hope that
whoever leads the Liberal Party in the future will come to understandc
that the Australian people want constructive oppositions.
QUESTION: Well, it would be and this may in a sense be acting against
my own best interests. But, it would be to concentrate on the
basic issues of concern to the Australian people because that's
what the people want. As I say, in a Sense I am probably talking
against my own best interests, because if they were to contiLnue
on the path they have been on, there iS nothing more certain
and it would be a totally devastating result, but that's not what
I want the quality of Australian politics to be lifted. And I think
an opposition has always got its part to play in that process.
QUESTION: Well, let me just go to both those points John. The assets
test I think, will become a plus for us, because the closer
we get to the election, the more clear : Lt will be to the 98% of
pensioners that they are not going to be adversely affected,
because the forms will go out and they will see that they are not
going to be affected. There is only about 2% of all pensioners who
could be in a position where they will have their pension affected.
Now, that factual situation will emerge as will the fact, that
leading figures in the Liberal Party believe in it. I mean I have
lost count of the number of times that John Howard has either said
or it has been reported to me of him saying to other people, that
he supports that assets test. Now, he is looked at as the next
leader of the Liberal Party, andT he supports the assets test.
Mr Peacock when he was on the back-bench in Government, he indicated
his support for it. Mr John Elliot, who is talked about as a
future leader of the Liberal Party has congratulated the Government
on it. Senator Chaney, when he was the opposition spokesman for
Social Welfare, he supported it. It is quite clear that right
across the spectrum people would understand the great burden that is
imposed upon any Government and the whole area of social welfare
realises that they have to be means tested, And they will try
and distort, but as I get back to the point I make that ultimately
I have faith in the good judgement of the people. You've had
this terrible situation resulted in some of the suburbs of
Sydney I understand, that because of the totally unjustified and
misrepresentation of campaign that the Liberals have waged saying
that there will be inspectors coming into homes to look at your
assets, which won't happen, can't possibly happen under our assets
test. You are having people going around posing as inspectors
and causing great inconvenience to pensioners. Now, that sort of
thing is despicable, and I just believe that the people will react
against that sort of misrepresentation.
QUESTION: It will be one of the jobs that we will have to do John,
I don't think it will be the main one. It will be something that
I am quite confident that we will be able to do.
QUESTION: Well, the interesting thing there John, is that I have been
saying for some time now that we want to start a debate in the
community about what's the best sort of taxation base to have.
We've started that discussion in the Economic Planning Advis~ ory
Council with contributions from the business community, who in
a very comprehensive statement have now said they believe there
is a place for capital gains tax. But, what I want to do is not
pre-judge the elements of a reform tax system, but I want to) really
open up the community discussion and debate uponit. Andin thE! same
way that we have produced the economic results since we have
been in office on the basis of using the strengths of the community,
consulting with them to do the same thing in the area of tax.
Not to pre-judge it, to impose something on it. It is interesting
to note that the NSW Liberal Party apparatus recently produced
their economic committee report. Well, they said that in their / 16
P. M. cont: judgement that a capital gains tax would inev ) ly
be part of a reform tax system. Now, I think that the de e
has just got to go on, and in the end we will get, as we a-3ve
in our general economic policy an overall consensus approach of
what's the best way of going about these things.
QUESTION: Well, not just of itself. I think that there is an
argument in principle for it. But, it is part of an overall
approach, but only out of a process whereby you can get a general
community understanding of it as part of a general system.
This is exactly what the Liberal Party said in its approach.
QUESTION: John, could I say two things.-thank you very much.
I have been reading a bit in the papers about perhaps we mightn't
still be having you on the sound waves during this period.
Could I just say this that not just in the last election campaign,
but in many that I have been aware of, you've played a very
important role in helping community understanding of issues,
in I think an impartial way. I hope that you are going to
play that part for the community intheSE next few weeks.
' j