E 0 E PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PM ON THE MIDDAY SHOW TUESDAY 24 JUNE 1986
MARTIN: Welcome Mr Hawke. Thank you for your time. How are you
feeling? PM: I have felt better, but we're on the way up.
MARTIN: Alright. Apart from questions here we're going to throw
it open to everyone. when we announced two weeks back that you
were coming on and you agreed to come on to talk, we had a
predictable number of letters from people in the bush and other
states who couldn't make it. We'll try and run through at some
stage the common themes that run through the questions they'd
like to ask. Let me ask something that is current, a telegram
that arrived yesterday afternoon, just to kick it off, then I'll
through it to you. This is from Peter Alexander in Clarence Town
Dear Ray, You will have Bob Hawke on your next program. Will
you ask him what he will do if it were his children rather than
the Chamber's and Barlow's in Malaysia.
PM: If I were the parents of those two lads I would do
everything I possibly could to save their lives. I would do that
because of my love as a parent. In my case I would also do it
because I don't believe in capital punishment. My heart goes out
to the parents of those two boys.
MARTIN: Do you think everything has been done by your Government
and the state governments?
PM: Everything has been done that could possibly be done by our
Government. I want to make it clear that we haven't sought to
say whether they are guilty or not of the offences. That is for
the courts and the courts have gone through their processes. But
we have said that we don't believe in capital punishment. It's
not a question of asking for a different treatment for
Australians as against Malaysians. We just don't believe in
capital punishment. Bill Hayden has done everything as Foreign
minister, with my full support, to try and see that the death
sentence should not be carried out.
MARTIN: What about Brian Burke's proposal then that they be
brought back to Australian gaols, western Australia or somewhere
else? What do you think of that?
PM: Well that is something that is to be considered by the
authorities in Malaysia. We can't make the decisions. All we
can say to the authorities is we have a deep conviction that to
take another persons life in retribution is not morally correct.
You know my feeling about drug offences, so I don't have to go to
that. But I don't think taking the life of another person is
proper. Life imprisonment perhaps.
MARTIN: Do you feel strongly enough about it, as Prime Minister,
to put a personal request into the Prime Minister of Malaysia?
PM: well the request has gone from us as a government.
MARTIN: But how about from the PM?
PM: Well it goes with my authority. The Foreign minister who
has the immediate responsibility of relations with other
countries has acted as the Prime Minister of Malaysia knows with
my full support. The Prime Minister of Malaysia knows my
position and I would still hope that in some way their lives
could be saved. More than that I can't say.
MARTIN: Would you be in favour of having them in Australian
prisons, as Brian Burke has suggested, for the 20 year sentence?
PM: Well if the attitude of the Malaysian Government were to be
that they would save their lives if the Australian Government, or
the State Government in Western Australia as Mr Burke has made
the offer, would accept the cost of the responsibility of a very
long period of imprisonment then we would support that. I
repeat, you've got to be very careful of relations between
government. We would not approve of another government seeking
to interfere with our processes. I think Australians, whatever
division of view there may be on this issue, I think the
overwhelming majority of Australians would say that as far as
Australia is concerned if another government sought to interfere
with our processes we would say mind your business. And that
is fair enough. Therefore, we must be very careful that we don't
appear to be intervening, interrupting the processes of another
sovereign nation. But if in their view the position would be
assisted if an Australian government said we will undertake to
keep these people in prison for a very, very long period of time
in return for you not carrying out the sentence of death if
that was their view, that they could accept that then that would
make sense.
MARTIN: Alright, questions.
QUESTION: Andrew Ryan, Chatswood CYSS. Is it true Mr Hawke that
social welfare payments are going to be lowered in their real
value when the next cost of living increase is debated. Would
such-dts-counting affect the under 18' s-dole, which is already
dreadfully low at $ 60 per week?
PM: No decisions have been made in this matter Andrew. All I
can say is in the preparation of the Budget the whole range of
Government expenditures, let me remind you when we talk about
Government expenditures that's the decisions by governments as to
what they do with your money, it's not Paul Keating's or Bob
Hawke's money it is the people of Australia's money and we've got
to make decisions about how that is expended. we are facing a
situation where we have to reduce the level of government
outlays. we have in what have previously been difficult periods
tried to ensure that those dependent upon social welfare payments
bear the least burden. That will be the same attitude that we
bring into our consideration on this occasion.
QUESTION: Do you personally agree that the under 18' s dole is
too low at $ 60 per week?
PM: well, if you had an ideal situation where you could pay more
of course it is too low. What everyone in this community has got
to understand Andrew, is that the people of Australia, don't
let's talk about Government, the people of Australia have not got
an unlimited vault of money there that we can just dip into and
say here's more for you, here's more for you, here's more for
you. If we had that we'd be in paradise, but we haven't got it.
We've got a responsibility to the unemployed. We've got a
responsibility to the employed. We've got a responsibility to
the aged. If I and Keating just had that unlimited vault there
into which we could dip then no problems. But what we've got is
your money, your taxes. That is what we've got to use.
QUESTION: As a small business owner don't you think the capital
gains tax is unfair? We put our house on the line to finance a
small business. we don't get the 17.5 per cent loading. We
don't get the four weeks holiday pay. We don't get two weeks
sick leave. Yet if we sell our business and we work hard to make
it a profitable business and sell it we now have to pay a capital
gains tax. I really don't think that is fair.
PM: I can understand your view but I must say we do believe it
is fair. Most countries in the world have a capital gains tax
because it is believed that people would do get an accretion to
their income in that way, in their financial capacity in that
way, should make some contribution. I'd remind you that the way
it has been brought in is not on nominal gains, it's on real
gains. We have not sought to make it a punitive tax. The
ordinary mass of Australian people who get their income through
wages and salaries, and which is their only source of income,
they have to make a full contribution, whichever government is
in, they have to make a full contribution to the taxes of the
community so that the community can do the things with the share
of income of wage and salary earners. So the bridges can be
built, the schools can be built, the teachers paid and so on. we
want to get away from complicated economic theory. That's all
this is about, when we talk about tax and services. we, as 16
million people, make the decision that there are certain things
for the collective good and the individual good, that the
individuals can'-t-do-f-or themselves. The community has to
provide those services. As a community we pay a portion of our
capacity, of our economic capacity, over to the Government so
that the Government will do these things. Now the great mass of
ordinary people pay that share automatically out of the pay
as-you-earn principle.* others can get a great increase in
economic capacity out of capital appreciation. Virtually every
country in the world says they should make a contribution. That
is what we believe.
QUESTION: But you still pay tax when you own your business.
You're still paying your tax every year. You still do those
things. I don't believe that I should get out of paying tax, but
if I'm prepared to work hard and put long hours in and I can sell
my business at a profit in a couple of years time, that's the tax
I'm against.
PM: Well you should be able to get an advantage out of that and
you do. A capital gains tax will only be upon not the nominal
increase, it will be on the real increase in the value. And you
certainly don't pay it all, you only pay a proportion of it. I
know how you feel about it, but I can assure you if you look at
the sorts of things we've done in Government we've tried to
increase the profitability of business. That in fact has
happened. The profitability of business is back now to the
highest level since the end of the 1960s because business,
including small business, provides 75 per cent of the jobs in
this country. That is why we've tried to increase the
profitability of business. In that way we've had this increase
of over half a million new jobs. So we're not trying to do it to
squash you, on the contrary. There are a lot of people who have
avoided their responsibility to the community through not having
to pay something on capital gains and we think that they ought to
be picked up.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke with the apparent removal of the profit
motive, what incentive are you offering young people of Australia
to build a future for themselves and hence Australia?
PM: What I got to say, not only have we not removed the profit
motive but we've done the opposite and the facts are there. The
share of profits in the Gross National Product are now not only
just higher than when we came to Government. It got down at the
end of the previous Government to 11.2 per cent of the Gross
National Product. We've pushed them right back, not just beyond
that, but to the highest level they've been since the end of the
1960s and that's not accidental. Every Australian, and I think
particularly my friends in the trade union movement who worry a
bit about this at times, have got to remember that 75 per cent,
that is three out of four jobs in Australia are provided by the
private sector. The private sector is not going to be able to
provide jobs for Australians, and particularly young Australians,
unless it is profitable.
QUESTION: And also if it is taxed out of existence.
PM: If they've been taxed out of existence the profit share
would not have gone up to the historically high levels that it
has gone up to-under this Government.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, you talk about profit share. In agriculture
we're 40 per cent of the exports, now there is 5 per cent, you
said we've got to work harder bringing in those exports. Now
we're living below the poverty line.
PM: Many of you are, that's right.
QUESTION: Right. Now your Government must do---something to keep
us on our farms. Now the rural debt plan as we put to you at
Canowindra is our solution. I was wondering how far you are down
the road in implementing a rural debt plan?
PM: I gave no promise to implement your plan. What I've done,
as I promised you I would, when I got back to Canberra I put to
the relevant departments the considerations that you put to me.
I've had them being looked at. I'll be writing back to you this
week. If I hadn't been off crook for this last week I probably
would have been able to get the letter off earlier. I've had a
look, I've had my people particularly have a look, at some of the
issues of your concern. I was very worried, for instance, about
one point that you made that suggested you could understood why
interest rates had risen. You didn't like it, but you said
whatever level of interest rates you didn't like what appeared to
be discrimination by the banks against farmers. That was one of
the things that you were talking about. Now I've had that looked
at. I'll be replying to you, as I say, in this coming week. If
I could just go to the general point about farmers. Again this
is something that all Australians should understand. one of the
things I tried to say in my Address to the Nation is that there
is a tendency for metropolitan Australians, people who live in
the cities, to say oh well farmers, they've made a decision to
be out there, they've got to take the bad with the good. well
that's not enough because as our friend said nearly 40 per cent
of all of our exports are rural exports. If farmers are getting
a hell of a lot less for what they export, as they are, then that
goes to bring about a reduction in the economic capacity of
Australia as a whole. So we've all got a vested interest in
trying to do as much as we can to keep farmers going, to keep
them producing. But importantly also to try and make sure that
internationally they get a better return for their products.
Australian farmers are amongst the best, the most efficient in
the world. we've got to try and do as much as we can as a
community. So I really do appeal to all Australians not to think
of the farmers out there as being a separate group, having a
problem by themselves. Their problems are our problems.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, I'm a farmers wife and I hold grave fears
for the future of my family, our farm and our rural community.
Are you aware that a wide range of new farm industries could
generate an extra $ 3 billion for Australia in the near future?
This exciting development is being seriously hindered by high
costs. How do you intend to reduce those costs?
PM: Can I just go to two points here? I'm glad to know that you
emphasise the positive in the first part of your question. There
is the possibility of diversification into a number of products.
I think the New Zealanders have-probably shown a bit more
imagination in this area than perhaps other countries, including
our own, although many of our farmers are doing it. So I think
we should give every assistance that we can there and we are. on
the second part of your question about costs, a number of things.
Firstly, we had to have higher interest rates last year to stop
the high level of activity which was sucking in so many imports.
That level of interest rates is coming down now. If you look at
June 1986 the prime interest now is 3 percentage points lower
than it was at-the end of 1985. In the professional money
markets about 5 percentage points, so it is down to what it was a
year ago. So we're trying to create the economic environment now
which that tendency will move further. That's why we're trying
to have a tough Budget, bring the deficit down, reduce the public
sector borrowing requirement so that interest rates will come
down further. That's one thing. The second thing is that in the
area of wages I've made it clear in my Address to the Nation that
there has got to be further reductions of expectations in the
wages area and that will be the Government's position. I notice
that some one said that what the Prime Minister had put in his
Address to the Nation was an ambit claim. Let me disabuse the
Australian people of any such suggestion. what I put in my
Address to the Nation in regard to has to happen in regard to
wages was no ambit claim.
QUESTION: Mr Prime Minister we've taken a reduction in our
earnings of 60 per cent in the last three years.
PM: In the same way in earlier periods when world prices went
like that, you had an increase and we welcomed that. You got
that enormous increase in incomes in earlier periods because of
one thing and that is because world prices rose and it was proper
that you should get the rewards for that dramatic increase in
world prices that took place. I agreed with you that what's
happened, now in the most recent period, is that world prices
have gone like that. That's the basic reason why you're incomes
have fallen. We've got to, as a government, try and do all that
we can to stop the criminal stupidity of the Europeans and now
the Americans subsidising their producers so that we've got
corrupted international market and you people are suffering.
We've got to deal with that. At the same time we've got to do
what we can about costs in Australia and we're trying to do that.
MARTIN: Welcome back, please keep your--questions short. Let me
Just dip into the pool here, PM. A theme that ran through lots
of the letter we had one bloke travelling through the United
States recently, in South Carolina, he was telling Americans
there about our 17 1/ 2 per cent loading and our 6-7 weeks of
public and annual holidays, something that Brian Burke has
brought up again today. And that was the theme through lots of
letters. People saying we are prepared to tighten our belts, to
do what you asked in the speech two weeks back, . but overseas
people think the 17 1/ 2 per cent loading and all the holidays we
get is a bit too much.
PM: I can understand that. If you want to make a full
international comparison, of course, you can look at certain
provisions that other countries have which are not matched here.
point to things here that they don't get reflected over
there. But you can point to certain features of the social
welfare system in Europe, for instance, that are not in existence
hre. And I would just make this point which I think is relevant.
Given the cost structure that we have got here in Australia,
enterprising companies have nevertheless shown that they have a
capacity to get up and compete with the rest of the world. Just
before I came here this morning, I went and opened the Sound and
Television International Conference at the Showgrounds people
from all over the world. And we had Australian technology there
on display. And I saw one thing there that was demonstrated to
me and in which we are leading the world. we are selling it the
Japanese in this area of hi-tech. Now I am simply making the
point that I think that while there may be a case that some of
these things which were given a more prosperous time, are perhaps
not so appropriate now. I think that too many Australian firms
use an excuse and say we can't do it, we have got too many
imposts. There are other firms that with the same impediments,
if you want to call it that way, same cost structure, getting up
there, they are going out and they are beating the world.
MARTIN: But what about the 17 1/ 2 per cent and all those other
things? PM: They don't have different award conditions.
MARTIN: It doesn't make you think twice though, the fact Brian
Burke has jumped on the wagon today. The fact that he is
suggesting..
PM: I don't accuse Brian of jumping on wagons. I think Brian is
a very, very good Premier and a very imaginative and a very
dinkum bloke. I don't think that we as Australians should take
anything that exists as sacrosanct. We will commit a great crime
for future generations-of th-i-s country if we simply say well.
everything we have got is perfect, we shouldn't look at it,
because it is there it is sacrosanct. We have got a fundamental
responsibility, not just to ourselves now, but most importantly
to the kids, to the next generation. And if that means looking
at anything -and-saying well should this be done differently now
we ought to do it. I don't regard anything as beyond the realm
of investigation and say well is there a better way of doing
this. Having said that, I don't think that enterprises in this
country should simply say our cost structure is too much we can't
do it because the evidence is there we can do it. We may do it
better if we change certain things.
MARTIN: Are you looking at the moment at even dropping the 17
1/ 2 per cent, dropping some of those other perks that people
refer to?
PM: It is not for government to drop it. This is an award of
the Commission, it is either an award where it has been awarded
or an agreement between employers and unions which have been
included in awards. Now, it is not a matter of law in other
words. It is a matter for the Arbitration Commission. If the
employers want to raise this matter, there is nothing to stop
them raising it. I don't want it to be inferred from that what
our position is. But I do say that any matter, whether it is
levels of wages or conditions of employment, ought to be capable
of being looked at.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, Brian Dean from Caringbah. I am a union
delegate and I have been a member of the Labor Party for quite a
number of years and I have always voted Labor both State and
Federal for as long as I can remember. This year I did not renew
my membership in the Labor Party. My reason for doing this is
that I believe the present day Labor Party has lost its identity.
Prior to your initial election victory the Labor Party, in a
successful attempt to win the middle ground, moved considerably
to the right. And since then we find that any Member of
Parliament who opposes you or Mr Keating, in particular, are
branded the loony left or the lunatic fringe of the Labor Party.
With this substantial move to the right it is difficult these
days to see the difference between Labor and Liberal, which
disappoints me. In an attempt to assist me with this problem, my
question to you Mr Hawke is what are the differences between
the Liberal and Labor Party?
PM: Just before going directly to that answer, let me make the
point about branding people as lunatics or loony left. It is not
really part of my caper. If people adopt a position which I
think is wrong, misguided or unintelligent my caper is to say so.
I hope that I have built up a reputation over the years of saying
what I think, including if that means saying to some people
within my own Party that I think you are wrong. I think it is
much better that I say that, in the end you are going to be
respected, I think, if you say look you are wrong. I think some
of-t-h-e-things that the Left have said have been wrong. I think
that they are just trying to believe that in 1986 you can talk in
economic terms as though we were still back in the halcyon days
of the 1950s and ' 60s. Now, the world might have stood still for
them but it hasn't stood still for anyone else. There has never
been a time in the history of this universe-where change has been
so rapid. And the great crime that we will commit as a Labor
Party, as a government, as a people is if we simply say the
world hasn't changed and we can have exactly the same thinking in
1986 as we had a generation ago. That is the greatest crime that
we can commit. And I will criticise people, wherever they are,
if they make that fundamental mistake. You ask me what is the
difference. I think the difference is this. That when the
Liberals were in, and remember this if you go back to 1949,
that is 37 years, in the history of this country, for all but 31
of those years now the Liberals have been in power. And if
people have a feeling that there is something wrong with the
basic structures and attitudes in this country, they have got to
remember that the conservatives have basically had control of
this country for that period. The difference between us and the
Liberals, and I am not here to attack all Liberals because I
don't think all Liberals are crook or wrong or silly or stupid
they are not but I think the philosophy is inappropriate to our
times. They basically are people of the past. They think that
what has been done in the past is appropriate for the present and
the future. And I think the thing that differentiates us is
that we think you have got to change and that is what attracted
some of the criticism of the Left. I think that because the
Liberals said we had had four banks in Australia, four Australian
banks, and you shouldn't have competition by bringing in foreign
banks. I think that the Liberals were wrong and I think the Left
of the Labor Party was wrong. They shared a stupidity because
they thought that the past was appropriate for the present and
the future. I don't think that
QUESTION: My main concern Mr Hawke, the Labor Party's philosophy
briefly is that the Labor Party would like to see business make a
reasonable profit, they also like to see the quality of life for
all Australians to be improved with special emphasis upon the
poor and the underprivileged. We have seen one side of that
scale successfully carried out where profit rates are at a
year all time high, as you mentioned earlier. But on the other
hand, recent surveys are showing that more and more Australians
are living below the poverty line. Now, something surely has to
be done to assist these people.
PM: Let me very quickly make these two points. Firstly, in
terms of the proportion of total government outlays in the social
welfare area, they have increased under this government from
40.9 per cent when we came to office to 42.3 per cent in the
' 85-' 86 budget. So there has been an increase in the proportion
of our outlays in this area. That is the first point. And there
has been an increase in payments beyond indexation of the best
part of two billion dollars. So it is a myth that this
Government has just been concerned-with economic efficiency and
that we have neglected the areas of need, we haven't. But the
second and in a sense the most important point is this we have
got to get out of our minds as Australians that there is some
sort of magical dispensation that exists there, going back to
what I said at the beginning. We have got a cargo cult
mentality. That the gods descend out of the skies and say here
is a lump of money, whether it be for the unemployed or for
manufacturers who want another incentive or for farmers who want
something. All of the requests, legitimate in themselves, but
Keating and Hawke, this Government or a Liberal government. We
can't create real money. The only real capacity that will last
and help this community to help those most in need is an economy
which is growing in real terms. And that is what my philosophy
and the philosophy of this Government is about is to try and
maximise real economic growth so that out of the creation of real
wealth, we as a community will be able to do more for those-most
in need.
MARTIN: Let's shift the subject a little. would you like to ask
a question?
QUESTION: My name is Kay and I am unemployed. And I was just
wondering, doing this volunteer work, while we are doing it how
are we going to be able to look for work?
PM: Part of the idea is that it wouldn't be for five days a
week. It would be silly to do that because then you wouldn't
have any opportunity. I wonder Ray if I could just quickly say
something to Kay in terms of reaction to the idea. At the
Premiers' Conference, all the Premiers and you can imagine the
political differences there are between Sir Joh on one hand and
John Bannon on the other. They all agreed that they wanted to
cooperate with this. The organisation which represents all the
local government organisations ( about 837 of them around
Australia) have written to me and said they support. The Youth
Affairs Council of Australia said they want to cooperate, the
Australian Council of Social Service. So we are going to get all
these groups together and try and get a bank of community work
but the idea will be that it won't be for five days perhaps a
couple of days, three days so that the unemployed will get a
lift out of the feeling that they are doing something, not just
getting the hand-out but there is a real positive connection
between the community and the unemployed. And I think that in
that way it will probably increase their stature. And then in
that remaining period of the week I think they will probably feel
better, probably more motivated to go out and look for work, but
very much part of it. But there will still be time still to look
for full time employment.
MARTIN: Can we ask on that same subject some of the unemployed
people here? Have you got a question for the Prime Minister?
QUESTION: I heard the Address and I agree with that voluntary
work is a good-idea. But we do a commercial youth radio show on
a commercial Sydney station and when we tried to get a CEP
program they gave us all the reasons why we couldn't get one.
PM: The CEP program is different from--the-sort of thing that I
am talking about because there a lot of that actually involves a
fairly large input of money with capital, it has involved with
many of the projects the building of halls and so on which
otherwise wouldn't be built. We are not talking about that sort
of thing here. It is really talking about work within the
community that just simply otherwise be done, which would give
the unemployed young people a feeling, as I was putting it before
to Kay, that at the moment the only nexus, connection between the
community, between society and the unemployed is there's the
dole cheque. There is no other nexus. What the unemployed have
been saying to me is that they feel that they want to do
something. And so talking to the organisations that I have been
talking about, including voluntary organisations Rotary and so
on there must be an enormous bank of things out there to be
done which wouldn't normally be done in the private workforce or
the public workforce which would give satisfaction to the
community, give satisfaction to the unemployed. It is different
from the CEP programs where we are actually putting large amounts
of money in to build capital projects. It is a quite different
sort of thing.
QUESTION: But wouldn't we be better off doing training and
saying what we want to do rather than doings things that we
wouldn't want to do?
PM: Of course. The idea of the community work program does not
involve any cutting down in the increased funds that we are
making available for traineeships. We are looking to try and
create 75,000 of those before the end of this decade, increased
money for apprenticeships and so on. All those training programs
are there but you are still going have, at the end, a fairly
large number of people who are not going to be able to be
involved in those. So you are trying to get to those people, do
something for them.
MARTIN: The questions we kept getting through here, PM, through
these letters along with this fellow's question was why not make
it compulsory. One thing to be voluntary, why didn't you simply
say as with the old schemes, older people remember the old
schemes. PM: Well, it would be a fraud to talk about compulsion because
you have got guarantee that in any immediate sense we would be
able to get together a bank of community jobs, running into
hundreds of thousands, there would be more of a demand, more of
the unemployed than there will be community work. So the
question of compulsion in those circumstances would be a fraud.
You would have to imply, if you said compulsion, that you know
that you could immediately have available more of these jobs than
you know, in fact, you could create.
MARTIN: They are talking of course about the old schemes where
people painted park benches and fixed up playgrounds and those
sorts of community efforts.
12
PM: The RED scheme. That was not comprehensive enough, it
didn't cover the full gambit. If you reached a stage some years
down the track where you, as a community, created more community
work opportunities than there were people, and you got a body of
people who were saying to the community we are just not
interested in doing anything, the community may well then say to
the government well we want you, in those circumstances to look
at the question of compulsion. But it is an unreal sort of
injection at this stage.
QUESTION: My name is Rhoda and I am unemployed as well. what I
am worried about is the scheme being abused, people who could be
getting jobs are going to lose jobs because they will think right
we will use these people on this scheme, we will get things done.
And also I was the scheme, where after being unemployed for six
months, I had the government's support where if someone employed
they payed a percentage of my wage. I was used for the time that
that was available and sacked the day it was finished.
PM: That was the SYETP, the Special Youth Employment Training
Program, known as the Sweet P. And I know, it was a scheme that
was abused, you are quite right. But this is something quite
different. We have reformed the Sweet P scheme so that where you
do have the community, and I keep saying the community not the
government, it is the community's money. Where the community is
providing assistance to employers, it is much more rigorously
oversighted so that that sort of abuse can't take place. But
what I am trying to point is that over and beyond the
opportunities that are provided in the normal workforce situation
by schemes like the Sweet P scheme and its equivalent. There is
still unfortunately although we have reduced the levels of
unemployment from the over 10% that we inherited down to less
than There is still going to be people who are not going to
be able to take advantage. So these sorts of schemes that we are
talking about are not in the normal private employment sector.
The sort of things that need to be done in a community for which
there wouldn't normally be assistance. Let me give you an
example. It is just an example but assistance to the aged, I
think there is a lot of good that could be done in this community
by unemployed young people. Giving assistance to old people,
there is a number of ways in which this could be done. Helping to
clean up old peoples homes, just a whole number of things that
aren't in the private sector workforce sort of concept but things
that could be done which would make old people better.
QUESTION: But along the lines of the charities, things that
charity workers
Yes, you see you have Rotary organisations and Lions clubs
right around Australia. They are organising working bees to try
an improve the facilities that are available to old people and
disabled people and so on. Now those sorts of things are
admirable. It seems to me that we could help young people get a
better sense of their self-esteem if rather.-thln just going along
and getting the dole cheque they had the opportunity of doing
those sorts of things. It is not intruding into the normal
private sector workforce or the public sector workforce. But it
is doing things that would be both good for the community, good
for the young people themselves, and as I said to Kay, still
leaving them time to try then to look for work in the normal
workforce. And I think they would go looking in that way with a
better sense of self esteem.
QUESTION: Hula Pillion from Southe rn Highlands. Appropos of
having people work I belong to an organisation which could
tomorrow give unemployed people, at least 30 of them work. I even
got a bus drivers licence because there was no one to transport
mentally and physically handicapped people. And I am sure if the
young people went to organisations like neighbourhood centres and
what have you, they could all get part time work which would, I
could give 20 of them work tomorrow, and they would do 20 or
hours work for the week and feel good about it. That wasn't my
question but that was....... Could the Government not save money
by issuing, instead of a new Australia Card to everybody, a
passport which could be utilised overseas as well and it would
take the part of the ID card, I mean it is an ID card isn't it, a
passport, and I would say quite a big percentage of Australians
have a passport and it is a status symbol to some.
PM: No, they serve two different purposes. They are two quite
separate sort of concepts. We are committed to the idea of an ID
card because there is no other way in which this community, I go
back to the fact that it is your money that we are dealing with,
your resources. There is no other way in which a Government can
be certain that it will do two things. Firstly, in regard to the
collection of tax it will be sure that everyone is making their
contribution. And secondly, that we can cut out fraud in the
social welfare area. Now the best estimates are that through the
issuance of an ID card with a photograph will save billions of
dollars in that way of your money and that is what we have got to
do. MARTIN: Alright we will take a break there for a moment then we
will come back. The PM has agreed to stay for an extra few
minutes. So take a break and then back.
QUESTION: Dedrie-lesley, you encourage us to buy Australian
goods yet most Australian goods cost more than imported goods.
What is your Government's policy on funding Australian
manufacturers? PM: First of all it's not accurate to say most Australia goods
cost more than imported goods. That's not true, some do. We've
got a range of assistance to the Australia manufacturing
industry. One which is terribly important is the 150 per cent
tax concession for research and development to Australian
manufacturing industry which has been widely welcomed by them and
has paid off a lot of dividends. But I wonder if I could just
quickly say something about buy Australian because we talk about
the things that governments have got to do and it is right that
governments on you behalf have to do things that only governments
can do. But this area of ' buy Australian' is something where
every single Australian can do something to help this country. I
think I said to you before when we were talking about it, I want
to say it again to this audience. If each single Australian, or
those responsible for all Australians in the case of kids, if we
were to substitute our buying just in a whole year $ 100, if we to
buy $ 100 worth of Australian products where we spend it on
overseas products, that would add up to $ 1.6 billion. if we made
it 200 that's $ 3.2 billion. Now I've just sat down and thought
about it myself because I just don't like saying words without
thinking about what it means. And I have thought of things where
I have bough some articles of clothing which if I had bought
Australian, I could have done it and I was a bit sloppy about it.
Now I think if we just realise that at $ 100 per Australian in the
course of a year we could turn our balance of payments around by
$ 3.2 billion. Now that is the sort of thing we can do. We ought
to convert our statements about being proud to be Australians
into reality. And that is something each one of us can do Ray.
MARTIN: Can I dip back here again because I am sure you have
heard the criticism. Buying Australian letters here saying why
are we buying New Zealand carpets for the new Parliament House?
Why are buying Italian glasses for the new Parliament House?
PM: Well, I agree. I just don't agree with those decisions. Let
me say that what happens in terms of decisions that are made by
all the authorities and so on doesn't come to Cabinet. I can't
answer for every authority but I would say to you quite clearly
that as far as this Government is concerned now we are going to
be pushing at the level of Government purchases for a preference
for Australian products. The Government will give the lead and I
hope that ordinary Australians themselves will just consciously
when you go to buy something you say is this Australian?
MARTIN:.--Is that suit Australian?
PM: That is Australian Melbourne. This is Gloweave, Melbourne,
Fletcher Jones, Florsheim, Melbourne. The best socks in the
world, the computer roll up socks. And modesty forbid me but
beaut Bond underwear.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, my name is Gary Wicks. I am from the Kurnell
oil refineries. Taking on what you just said about buying
Australian, your Government is considering in late 1987 early
1988 bringing in a concept known as a free market in the oil
industry in Australia. Now would you not see that as being
diametrically opposed to what you have said about being
Australian, buying Australian for Australians because to import
all that finished product from overseas at the expense of the
Australian refining industry is just hypocritical?
PM': No it is not. Let me make this point that we haven't got
unlimited Australian resources of oil. We haven't. I mean if we
had a situation where we knew that there was just an unlimited
amount of oil then what you are saying would make sense. But we
have got to look at conservation of our resources as well as
utilisation so it makes sense to try and get the best economic
deal that is available when you have those limited resources.
Quite different from the sort of thing that I am talking about
where out there on the shelf if you have got two products, one
Australian and one imported, where you should I believe make a
conscious decision to buy Australian if you possibly can. It is a
different proposition.
QUESTION: Are you aware that that decision, if made by your
Government, is going to cost thousands and thousands of jobs?
PM: Well we haven't made the decision yet. But if you simply
made every decision in terms of what it meant for keeping an
existing Australian job then that wouldn't be wise because what
you have got to remember is that Australians have to buy a
particularly product. If you insist that for every product it
must be made in Australian then the farmers are shot. I mean if
you are selling overseas then you do have to import. And what I
am talking about buying Australian does not carry the
implication that we mustn't import at all from overseas. we have
got to import from overseas because if we don't then how are our
exporters going to live. Selling from overseas involves buying
from overseas. All I am saying however is within that concept
where we do have to trade and have imports you have still got a
big range of choice as Australian consumers. And it is where you
have got the choice, the real choice that exists, the choice
should be for Australia.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, you say buy Australian. I am an ave rage
Australian, I walk around the supermarket and pick up products
and I say I want to buy Australian. OK the products in the
supermarket may be grown in Australia but it is packaged
overseas or it is brought in under an Australian brand name but
it is packaged overseas. Also in the the clothing line, designed
in Australia but manufactured Taiwan, manufactured in Hong Kong,
manufactured in China. It is very difficult to buy Australian.
Australian manufacturers hav-eben forced into a position of just
another multinational company. To manufacture in Australia they
can no longer afford to compete with the goods being imported
from overseas. So they are forced into a situation where they may
design in Australia but to compete on the local market they then
have to manufacture overseas and bring those goods back into
Australia.
PM: That is not generally true. It is obviously true in some
cases. It is true that in a whole range of areas Australian
consumers do have a choice, a legitimate choice between an
Australian manufactured design and assembled product in
Australian and one which is from overseas. Now I believe that we
do have to address ourselves to some of the areas that you're
talking aboutto try and get a situation where there is more done
in Australia to develop Australian design. Can I just go to one
thing that I was talking last night up at the Lodge to Barry
Jones, the Minister for Science. He was telling me about this
truly exciting development in respect to a motor vehicle engine.
I won't go into the technical details, but it's quite
revolutionary. It offers an enormously exciting prospect. The
thing we've got to make sure of in regard to this, if it's a goer
which it looks as though it can be, is that as far as we can keep
the benefit for Australia. Too often what's happened in the past
you've had Australian genius in a whole range of fields, they
work out the concept then off it goes overseas and we lose the
benefit.
QUESTION: Isn't that a Government problem that the funds aren't
there to develop. OK the research is done in Australia but then
researchers have to go overseas to develop their goods.
PM: There has been too much of that in the past. What I'm
saying is
QUESTION: But there's still too much of it.
PM: Well it is much better now because we are in it by a range
of the things that we've done as Government providing more
incentive for the people with the ideas to stay within Australia.
As far as this particular one that I was talking about, this new
revolutionary concept of an engineer that's being talked about
here. MARTIN: Let's go to the last question. Let's give the last
question to the next generation Mr Hawke.
QUESTION: On a recent program small kids with wheelchairs didn't
have enough money to buy new wheelchairs. Then the next part of
the program they showed women surfing getting paid 2,000 or so
dollars. PM: I think it was 12 actually.
QUESTION: To start up a new organisation or something. Do you
think that's righ-t?
PM: It was $ 12,000 1 understood. I didn't know anything about
it until I saw the program and as I understand it was to try and
develop with $ 12,000, which is not a great deal of money in the
overall scheme, to try and get more interest by more women in
surfing. I'm not saying it's necessarily the greatest idea in
the world, but I don't get terribly excited about it. As far as
the area that you're talking about, of the disabled, all r can
say is that we've substantially increased not only the funding in
17
real terms, but organisational4y improved the arrangements within
Australia for more assistance to the disabled. So it is really
quite unfair to say, well look, what about the disabled and imply
that because $ 12,000 is being made available to some exercise in
regard to more involvement for women in surfing that we haven't
thought about the disabled. I'm very proud of what we've done in
the area of the disabled. We've done more for them in real terms
than has ever been done before.
ends S
attachment Dear Prime Minister,
Thanks to the Government's support in investing in [ and they name
their company and they refer to our investments grants) we are
now in a position to build a $ 70 million plant late in ' 86. Due
to government support 250 new jobs will be created immediately
the plant is completed and will increase to a total of 500 jobs
within 4 years. I know the Government has done a lot more to
assist the country's exports and job creation than it is aware.