E O-B-POOF ONLYTRAN
kCITP1' O1_ iN1' I( V IEW1_ UF P. FME1 rT$~ ROJR'MATN
DAY SHOW TUIDAY 13 FESL3R1Y 1987-
RM: The Prime minister 1s with us today so please make
him welcome. Mr Bob Hawke. Welcoine Mr Hawke arid thidnk
you for your time.
PM: Alwasxy a pleasurc to be with you.
R~ M. I hope~ you a~ nd Mazel had nilirsta.-
PM: A beaut Christdmas. thank you.
RM: A couple of questions to start. A couple of tough
ones. H-ow is your golf going? And we going to have an
early election?
PMV: They are both easy. 17 is What they have got me on
ntow which is a bit tough I think;'
RM: That.-you gLqf g~ jmv4,,. but arc we going to have an
early election?
F'M: No. I stick to what I s. aid deapite of all the
temntapt ions they Are putt ing In front Qf me, The parliament
will 80 its full terin and the election will be either the cnd
of this year or early in 1988.
RM: So no prospect if the Sxinate knocks the Aust c -a rd
asecond time with in doublc dissoiluLcv. n
PM: I just hope that thia Senate. won't do that. It is
a v. simple thlng.. thc only people in Aust. who stand to benefit
by a refusal by the Libs and the Democrats and the Nationalti
to pass that legislation arc-2 set5 of people--Ta-x-Cheats
on the one hand and the welfare bludgers on the otherL. They
are the only people who stand to gain by that Legiblation being
knocked back. I hope good SenISe Will jirevail.
RM: If they dca knnrir hArk though...
PM: I don't anawer htypothetical quc., tionr,. But my commitment
really. . what I want to sec happcn is, to see this Parliameunt
goit&; rull Lein. I thinak most Australins would agree. with
me that really our parliamentary terms are too short. 3 years
PM: just about the n5hort est in the world. And I think
they would l ike to see longer aind mrce staible. That is what
we arc t ryirig io du PuVIV idc a btatll t; vvt: 1 1111-It II CVl i
all this flofl$ CflS to the others.
ElM: Al right. Wha t abou t thisb nion benube. EvCunIybody else
ha s had their . opinion. WhatL is* Joh up t o? What do you think
he is tip to?
PM: Well it maty conhC as no suprisc, but Joh does not confide
in me so I have just go to specul& te but sceriously, I
think that-Joh ' allowed h-Imself to be._.. lkedmt U a posit iol
by this group of v. wealth backers that he has. And Idntknock
them because they-are wealthy but thats the group. of batckerb.
Thttey tii-n--t--t--. joh--ouleJieepuLv tq their sort of position.
And I think they persuaded him that they had financial resources
_ t-o push him perhaps__ right to the Lodge. And lie hais Luiken that
ba it and Tiilriottjh sp-hme-fI-to--ps-t--nwhxe__
his own-crecdibility__ would b~ e absolutecly--zflch if he doe * sn t-
-go -ahead now and come to tFdrIalien. utmy -judg-enien-t-
! s that if he comes to the Fed. Parlilament hie couldn't evcn gct
the leadership of the National Party, let alone anything else.
RM: Are you still praying that hie will still come?
PM: Yes, I would v. much like him in t. here. As I put it t o
-you he would such at cohiesive force in conservative force in
C Anbe r r a.
RM: Let me play you what Joh said on Tuesday when I asked
-him if he could beat-you ont hi -s __ own wtt-a-Joh Party. or. if i-t
would have to be a coalition effort -both the Nationals arid-the
Liberals. Here is what he said
" Quite simply yes I can, he can, he con. With ihe Nutional P a rt y
behind me and supported the policies 1 had we could do it ourselve
without any problem at all. because the Austral [ an people are fed
up to here, with everything that the Labor Party are doing. They
are claimed to run a nation on a cracked foundation.... . you wouldn't
build a house on a foundation that. they hiave got of 20 odd
different UL-SUxLiSdtiUllb... the CoMnUuliuiSitS, the Socialists, the
iriernational Socialists, the Majority Group, the Right Wingers,
the Left, the old guiard, tle tlew gu& ud you mention it the stack
of them... How could you run a8government that way? I told then)
that at the first Summit that Hawke had"
RM: Quick rcaction?
PM: Well if you want to talk about factions and grou~ ps -its
the conservative poitics that you have to look at -you just
can't keel) up with the numbers of groups there. I ans just going
oni with the busli-ess which I know this audience and Australia
wants me to do. It is to providc solid, cautious govcrnmcnt.
That is what we arc doing and wc a rc doing it with a v. considerable
degree of support
RM: But Joh has proved in the past. Mr Hawke that it is foolish,
dan~ el-oufs to dismiss him.
PM: There is one thing that you have got to remember Australia
is niot Queensland when it comes to the fairness of electoral
laws. Joh cannot get elected PM of Australia with 38% or-the vote
or 40% of the vote.
RM: But recent polls has shown that he has got more than that.
The polls would indicate that there arc an awful lot of or-diriary
Australians who a) respect him and b) like him.
PM: I srn not here to k ' nock oh. it -s -not-pa -or my. Iii;
hi storicHl ly in pol it ics tio get in to the person. It the pier-son
says something that is wrong I will go as toughly a~ s L ca. BuLt
I haven't got a record of1 attack on the PeUS0ri. 1 am not here
to attack ] of;.
_ PM: us mktepont that th-e-poAIls-don_' trslooW1. & ffi overf-7i--
whelmiiag support L or J oh. They simply don't . Yoiu just have
a look at the polls.
RM: 70 odd perccnt it was the other day?
PM. You arc not serious about telephone polls, are we? I
mean I would've thought that a hellava lot of people who rung
in in support of J olf, I f they had any-sense-whould have been-Labor.
supporters because they would really want to see'the push for
Joh to CAnberra. I mean can you think of aniything better, from
our point of view. thars him coinrg. Ian Sinclair. was horriftied.-
He eeti his job on the line and John Howard Is a bit like
that, so why wouldn't we want to see him there?
RM: When is Andrew Peacock goin8 to maake hiS o1Ve Onf John
Howard?
P'M: Well ag~ ain, Andrew docbui't r-ing me up every day but Anidrew
is poised to pounce. I think he conduced himself v. stupidly
in the last fortnight and I say that to my friend Andrew. Things
WCU-C going V. Well for you and you should've rshut up But he
ha~ d to come out and say Sir Joh was the greatest thing since sliced
Ure~ d Now a l ot of peopl e in the Li beral gun have had J oh ' s
guni right at their head Joh was going to knock, them them and
them off those people were Peacock supporters. Then Andrew comes
out anrd siays Joh is the greatest thing ever. I think that some
of those JIberol supporters of Andrew weren't terribly impressed.
However, hie made a tactical blunder there anid he has a \ pt Of
support in the Lib. Par-ty. Johun hats v. little. There Is not a
marjority there who thinks tie can win and so Andrew Is just
waiting. What will happen I just don't know. As I Say I am
just getting on with the business of running government. Leave
all that to them.
RM: I had a telephone call1 a few minutes ago from hir H1oward...
PM. You mean he had the temerity to ring you up anid ask you
something? Shocking
RM: lie says he is looking forward to comning ort this show
on Moniday atid tic noticed that you were on and he said there is
a que5tion for you. This is MLr Iluward.. s question
PM: He doesn't ask me mnany in Parliament so 1 might as well
get one thi s way.
RM: He says that he~ read in the papers this mornintg that YOU
Are going to reshuffle your cabinet. He says " Given that Mr
Keat ing is so unpopular around the country for not having put his
tax returns ini anid other things, are you thinking of shifting Mr
Keating cis Treasure, arnd 1.1 so plea# 3e don
PM: Ah, he is di splaying sornefhting C~~ Th ~ cTa~
a sense of humou r. Let me say__ 2_ thIngs john, I hope you are
wa telli fig Firstly, don't get deluded about Mr Keating s
urILpQpularity you John made a decisTon to fight the 8ak-s-r o
by-election on " Give Keating a -Bea-ting 9-and in ' What were
i-t-rp-it--e-wo-utsa---c~ f i-I r-tin -tey~ eLe~ ti Dn
ht31j%' 2-party pr-cf'crr-ed -swing-agaIn-st--abor was-t-he-t-hi-rd
t-ow-estswtng-i-n--a: -by -ci1 ect i-on -in-th-s -S1t--e--f-or'--y-ear.-S Zdon
' t get carried -away wi th that. And secon~ dly-let ths
-Paul Keating okay he has made some mistakes which as a man he
has openly conceded to and expresued his regrets. Good on him.
I don't, condone thc mistakes neither does he. Test him as
a Treasurer. The best Treasurer irt tbe history of this country.
iRM: Thank you for that. We-we will comte back with youLr
que t l ons in a-one'. sinen t
MARTIN: It's now your chance to ask some questions. Let's start
with the blokes down the front in the ties, the farmers.
QUESTION: My question to the Prime Minister is last time I spoke
with him in Moree he walked away from me, mainly because he
didn't have time to answer the question. The question I pose to
the Prime Minister today is when are we going to have interest
rates reduced so everybody can have an even standard of living
throughout Australia? And when canh-Australians expect -the
Government taxes on all our fuels reduced by 50 per cent, so we
all go away for the weekend and have a'good time?"
PM: Well I wish economics were as easy as your questions imply.
Letme . make the first point, there is no politician, in his right
mind, who likes high interest rates. You don't have interest
rates any higher than_ are necessary._ You'd be certifiable if youdid.
The simple fact is -that if we precipitatively and too early
reduced interest rates what would happen is that you'd loose the
exchange rate, you'd absolutely loose the exchange rate, and then
interest rates would spiral in a way over which you had no
control. That's the first point. Interest rates will come down
in this country as soon as we are responsibly able to bring them
down. I want them down just as much as you do. It's not only
farmers, everyone in this community wants them as low as
possible. That's the first point. -The second one, about-the
reduction of taxes, I'm not in the business of John Howard and
Joh Bjelke-Petersen of making irresponsible promises about tax.
John Howard and his mob were in government for seven and a half
years and he walked out of office leaving-a top-marginal rate of
cents in the dollar. In four years, by the middle of this
year, four years from 1983, we will have reduced that top rate
from 60 to 49. We will have brought in the fairest tax system
that this country has seen. Ours is not rhetoric. We will get
taxes down in a way which is responsible, and which is going to
keep economic growth going, and keep inflation under control and
not have it blowing through the roof in the way it was done
before. Let's just look twice at what our opponents did in the
area of tax. In 1977 we went to an election. Remember the
fistful of dollars they gave you for the big tax cuts. The
people trusted them, put them back in and within three months of
them being elected they grabbed it all back. Then in 1982 what
did they do then? They gave you tax cuts which blew the deficit
out to $ 9.5 billion in 1983, which we had to deal with. You get
tax cuts from us, you get real ones which you keep.
QUESTION: I'm John Williams. Your government has. adopted a
policy of high inflation rates to support a sinking Australian
dollar and to slow the economy. If you look at the BAE
statistics last year 1985/ 86 32 per cent of men on the land had a
negative income. I've got it right there if you don't believe
me. The fact is that interest rates are our biggest cost. We
compete on world markets. We've got to clean up the rest for the
grab of the world market. Yet our costs here at home in
Australia, our interest rates, our fuel costs are-just leaving us
uncompetitive. MARTIN:_ Haven't we just answered that question?
PM: I'm very glad in your question John you quoted the BAE,
because that means you believe the BAE figures.
QUESTION: I believe
PM: You're quoting them, do you believe them or don't you?
QUESTION: I believe the figures, the history figures, but not
the ones they've forecast.
S I see. I don't want to worry about forecasts, we'll
their actuia statistics, so I'm glIad you rely on them. The BAE
statistics show that under this government the increase in farm
_ 0tcos shaveb een-mo-rethan-haLved-f-Lom-thterat-eu ndetr__ t hep. rev-_ Lo-us____-
government. Now that is the BAE statistics, the source that you
quote.. -W. ith-respect-to -qui-te1_ silly, I-don--t-w. ant. to-..
be rude, but it is quite silly to say that we've deliberately.
increased inflation to slow down the economy. What are the
facts? When we came to office what was the rate of inflation?
11.2 per cent, that was the rate of inflation that we inherited.
By the beginning of 1985 we'd more than halved that. We'd got it
down to 5 per cent. The increase that has taken place since then
is absolutely the result of the turnaround in the terms of trade
and the devaluation that has gone with it. But even with that
the rate of inflation hasn't gone-back up to that Il-. 2-per cent
of our predecessors. So your facts are wrong and your own source
shows that we've more than halved the rate of farm costs. Those
. are the facts. As to the future let me_ saythis, and even the
National Farmers Federation, which give us a bit of a tickle up
now and again, have been good enough to say no government could
have done more than we have done in tackling what is your real
problem. And that is the fact that you people, who are the most
efficient farmers in the world, are being kicked to death by the
corruption of international trade which is being practised by the
Europeans and the Americans and the Japanese. That's what is
kicking you to death. And no one could have done more than I and
Kerin and Dawkins have done to try and start to get good sense
into the international trading system. So we will continue what
we've done, to halve the rate of increase in farm cost, that were
inflicted upon you by people who kept the exchange rate too high.
That was the National Party and the Libs, they kept the exchange
rate too high. We've brought it down, so you've benefited from
that and we'll continue to fight as hard as we can for you,
whether it is in Brussels, Geneva, Washington to do the thing
that is really going to do something to give you the returns that
your efforts justify.
MARTIN: Let's change it for a moment. Let's go with the two
schoolgirls from Bankstown.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, my name is Julie Dean, I'm from Blacktown
Girls High. Recently you spent a lot of money on the drug
offensive, how effective do you think that was?
PM: Well we haven't finished spending it. It is a program which
was not just the Commonwealth Government, and I give tribute to
all the State Premiers, including our political opponents. They
came, at my request, to Canberra and it is a combined
Commonwealth and State drug offensive campaign. And the major
emphasis that we're trying to give Julie, is in the education
area. What I can say is that my own impression, and it is
confirmed by what is being put to me by people who are constantly
in the area, that with young people there has been, it seems, a
significant decline in the tendency that there was on their part
just to easily say yes to drugs. There is a greater tendency on
young people now to say no. We can't justrely on that and say_-
well it's worked. we're going to continue that education
program. May I take this opportunity, if you don't mind, in
terms of talking about education program, I want to give enormous
credit to the Reverend Ted-Kn-of-f--of--th-e Wayside Chapel--and-is
life education centres. I've just gone in and witnessed that and
no-one__ is. s-doing-a-more. effec-tivej o b-ing elti. ngt oouryo-u ng
-people and teaching them about the-deadly danger of-hard drugs.
It's with programs like that, assisted byCommbnwealth and-state-lfunding,
we'll keep up this fight.
MARTIN: Mr Hawke, can I quickly ask you on that point of Ted
Knoffs and what Julie's asked? I've found, in the Christmas
break as well, ordinary Australians appear to me to be more
concerned, with children of Julie's age, more concerned not
whether they're going to get a job, not whether someone's going
to drop the nuclear bomb, but whether or not they're going to get
-hit by hard drugs. Do you read -that-as well?
PM: In all the correspondence I've had and in all the research
that we've done, certainly the question of hard drugs loomed as
one right up there as one of the major problems. It would be
absurd for us, as Australians, I'm not talking about a
government, it would be absurd for us to say that we're going to
eliminate the problem. And it would be absurd, given our
enormous coastline, to say that we're ever going to be able to
totally stop hard drugs getting into this country. We've
increased resources, we'll increase penalties in the states and
so on. The real thing is to stop the demand and that is why
education is so important. I believe that with the sort of
things that people like Ted Knoffs, in particular, are doing, and
with our support, that gradually there is going to become an
awareness amongst our young people that it is an insanity to
endanger your life, or indeed to debilitate yourself to the point
of uselessness by using hard drugs. We haven't won the fight
yet, but I think the signs are there that as a community, I'm not
talking about he government, together we're going to win it.
QUESTION: My name is Karen. I'd like to talk about the student
fees of $ 250. Can you tell me to what purpose are these fees.
And do you see in future the fees will be increased to make
higher education something just for the upper classes?
PM: Let me make these points, a very important question.
Firstly, they are not student fees. They are administration
charges and they don't cover the whole of the administration
charges. The calculation is that the full cost per annum of
someone going through university is about $ 8,500. That's the
cost, so it is not a fee. It just meets some of the
administration-charges. Secondly, we-have,-in introducing that
administration charge, provided that those who are in receipt of
TEAS, that is the most needy relatively, will not pay the charge.
The talk about the question of ensuring that those who are most
in need will be helped and not those who don't need it. The fact
is that under the previous situation the wealthiest in the
community were paying no contribution in any way to the cost of
university education directly. Now the $ 250, structured as it
is, to take it off those with-the lowest income is providing a
Sway in which the more affluent are making some contribution. The
final part of your question, o I see any way in which this will
be increased? The only way in which you're going to get
university fees, as the present political partiesare stating
their position, is under the Liberals who are-s ayg -they will
introduce university fees. If that were done in the way they'ddo
it, without any way of looking after the needy, that would
ensure that university-education did-become the-preser. ve.-of. the..
most affluent..--Whatwe.' v_ e_ got_ to _ do-_ i. n._ thi. s country, and it's my_
goal and always has been, to try and create a situation-where
there is true equality of opportunity. It doesn't matter if a
kid is Bob Hawke's kid, or a multi millionaire's kid, or a kid
from the poorest circumstance, if that kid has got the intrinsic
ability to go on and be trained in a tertiary institution, that
training should be there. That's why we in government have
provided an additional 37,000 places in the universities, to
create more opportunities. We should put the issue of the
-education of our kids-beyond-and-above-politics, because that is
our greatest asset and that's what we're^ trying to do-.
QUESTION: My name is Tim, may I call you Bob?
PM: Yes Tim.
QUESTION: The ludicrous work practices on the wharves are the
thing that worries me. People are waiting to get their stuff and
there's strikes and practices like if five guys are working
together and one goes to the toilet the other four will stop
until he comes back. Stuff like that. What do you think should
be done? What are you doing about that sort of stuff?
PM: Let me just make these points quickly. In terms of
industrial stoppages, which are really the things that do cause
the most problem, I'm proud of the fact that under my government
the rate of industrial disputes in this country has been more
than halved than what was the level in the seven and a half years
of the Fraser government. We've more than halved the level of
industrial disputes. But I'm not resting on that record. I've
convened a meeting last year and I give credit to the employer
organisations of this country and to the ACTU. They responded,
they came to me. I said look, the sort of thing you're talking
about, practices that grew up in easier days, some of them
initiated by employers to get labour, others initiated by unions,
I said we can't accept that those practices are any longer
justified. Will you join with us in examining these and see if
we can get rid of those that are not necessary. They said yes.
So what is happening now is that at enterprise and industry
levels discussions are going on between employers and trade
unions to try and work out a way in which not only work
practices, but some management practices which can't be
justified, should be eliminated. Because what we've simply got
I
to recognise in this country is that for 30 years or so after the
war, due in large part to the efficiency of our farmers and then
of our mineral operations, we just got enormously high incomes
because people were paying the prices for those things. They're
not now and they're not going to pay the same sort of prices. So
if we're going to prosper as a country, if our kids are going to
have the opportunity of enjoying improving living standards, then
we've got to be competitive in a whole range of other areas. And
we won't be competiftive if we have-restficti-ve work-pracfices-and---
restrictive management practices.
QUESTTONTM-.--M--H-awk-e I was just wondering, I was going to a
rehabilitation centre for a car accident that I had and that
_ cen-tre isbe-in-gclo. s-edd. o-wn Itlsone-o-f_-temna jQrrehabilitation
centres in Sydney. That and its-sister.
rehabilitation centrehave-been closed down and I was_ jus t
wondering with tax cuts and that, can-we expect more-closures of
centres such as this?
PM: What has happened there is that there's a program being
undertaken where we're rationalising the operations between
states and the Commonwealth. It's not on our part a cutting down
of rehabilitation services. We're handing more responsibility
over to the states. There's not going to be a net reduction in
the provision of rehabilitation services but a rationalisation ofactivities
so that you don't get a duplication between the
Commonwealth and the states. And you'll find as this is worked
out, not only in this state and other states, there'll be no
reduction in total in the services provided.
QUESTION: I come from a small country town, population 500,
called the greatest little town in the west. Mr Hawke, have you
got a word of encouragement for country people? Our town is
dying. We're losing our railway line. We're threatened with
closure of our hospital. Small country towns and close-knit
communities such as ours are dying.
PM: Well one of the problems, I've alluded to it a bit in the
answers in regard to what the farmers were saying about their
situation, is that we've lost an enormous amount of income as a
result of the fact that the world is paying very much less for
the products that we produce. I don't want to bore you with
statistics but the fact is in the last 18 month period we had $ 6
billion wiped off our national income. That was because the rest
of the world was paying less for our wheat, our dairy products,
our meat and so on. They just paid less. There was $ 6 billion
gone. Now if $ 6 billion is taken out of the economy that means
there is less demand. The farmers haven't got the money to buy
the machinery and buy other things that they were doing. So some
of these things are going to happen unfortunately, until, as I
said, we can get sense into the international.. trading. community.
You've got the absurdity, this is why I went over to Davos to
tell world leaders there, you've got the absurdity that the
Europeans and the Americans are paying billions of dollars for
uneconomic production. They're just building up these great
surpluses, paying people to produce and then they dump them on
the markets-where our people were previously competitively and
efficiently selling. What we're trying to do is get sense back.
If we can start to do that and get a more prosperous and
profitable rural community then the sorts of things that you're
talking about won't happen to the extent that properly concerns
you now.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, I'm just interested with the big takeovers
that are going on, worldwide. Does that affect our balance of
payments. Is it detrimental to the country, or is it any good to
the country?
PM: No. We're appearing in a studio that has been taken over by
Mr Bond. The---f ftakeovers su n as det r imfenftal.
The whole theory of competitive enterprise is that if a
.& parzticular. enterpriseis _ operating__ i. n_ a Ka_ ywhere others think
they can do it better and operate it more efficiently, then
that's-what hapi s. J -l'd-cif! tlNd-ve--i-i-b t--ioit ta~ eo. r
such. We've watched the-situation.-If we thought there was
going to be some competitive disadvantage created for this
country then we'd have to consider taking action. But I think
what Australians want to see, generally speaking, they want to
see a free enterprise market where the initiative of individuals
is available to be used. Where competition can take place and if
someone can do something they think better than another, let them
do it. We've examined the financial implications as to whether
in terms of our external balances there is any adverse impact and
all the best analysis that can be done by our treasury and
independent officials suggest that there is no adverse impact
upon our external position. I can assure the two things we're
concerned about is trying to see this economy operate as
efficiently as it can and to see that doesn't happen in a way
which is going to impose external problems for us.
MARTIN: We are out of time. In a word though Mr Hawke, is 1987
going to be rougher and tougher? Are we going to have to tighten
our belts more than last year?
PM: 1987 is going to be a better year. It is certainly going to
be a better year than 1986. We're not going to have $ 6 billion
knocked off our income.
MARTIN: Did you hear that sigh of relief then?
PM: Well sure. I can understand it. If I were a farmer, I can
understand their feelings completely.
FARMER: ( inaudible)
PM: You can say that but you're wrong.
FARMER: Come to Moree again Mr Prime Minister.
PM: Alright I'll come. The situation is what do you feel like
if you go andsow your fields and you get a crop and you just have
the prices going down.
MARTIN: But it is more than farmers isn't it? It's ordinary
people too.
PM: But it is farmers to a very large extent. Farmers and our
mineral products. What people tend to say is the farmers are
suffering poor bloody farmers, if you'll excuse the French.
But when the farmers are suffering the whole Australia suffers.
So what I'm saying is that on all the evidence 1987 will
certainly be a better economic year than 1986. We're not going
to have the same degree of problems, but we're still, as a
community, going to have to adjust to the fact that we've had
that loss of income and make the sort of tough-decisions that are
necessary. We won't get out of problems by pie in the sky
nonsenses about 25 per cent flat tax rates. It is nonsense and
the people who are sayingt k-now-thEt-if's nonsense. 1-well--make
the decisions that are right.
ends I
~ I