TRANSCRIPT OF RADIO INTERVIEW WITH JOHN JOST, RADIO 3uz
MELBOURNE -22 MARCH 1989
Z6 0 9 PROOF ON4LY
JOST: And it is welcome to the Prime Minister of Australia,
Bob Hawke. Thanks for joining us.
PM: Pleasure John as always.
JOST: Well Prime Minister you have been making a big media
splash lately.
PM: Well, there seems to have been a bit of coverage, yes
John. JOST: Big coverage. I want to ask you, why did you talk so
frankly about your marriage to Clive Robertson?
PM: Well there was nothing planned about it. As you know,
I always say to any interviewer beforehand I don't want to
know what the questions are. That's what I said to him. I
had no idea what the questions were, and I believe in
tellini the truth. Questions were asked, there was no point
in avoiding them.
JOST.-I suppose you have to say this about Australia. it
is probably the only country, the only Western democracy in
the world where you could speak so frankly, and make such
admissions. FM: Well I don't know whether that is so John. But I think
I know Australia and Australians better than any one just
about. I don't want to, even now on this program# I don't
want to go on talking about-
JOST: ( inaudible)
PM: I'm just making the point if you'll excuse me. I don't
want to go on and on about essentially private matters, I
did want to take the opportunity really at that time of
paying a tribute to my wife. And I did that. But I had no
feeling that it would be offensive, or that Australians
wouldn't expect me, if asked, as I was, to talk about these
matters. I did. it was nothing more complex than that.
2.
JOST: well it was a personal interview and i ather it was
put to you on that basis. But it does obviously it does
impact into the political arena because I know that the
Government's got some concerns, for instance, about the vote
of women, the level of support from women voters. And I
was wondering what you think, because you probably know the
electorate better than I do, how that interview last night
would impact say on women.
PM: I've got no idea. I don't think we should think of
women as essentially different as human beings, as voters,
than men. There are some issues which areo particular
interest to women, and I acknowledge that and I think in
that area of issues of particular concern to women like
education and -child care and so on, we've got a particularly
good record. But on this issue of the reaction of women to
what I may say in these areas, I think generally they will
have the same reaction as men. I haven't thought about it.
JOST: Why do you think the standing of the Government is a
little bit lower with women than it is with men?
PM: I don't know. It may be that women traditionally are a
little bit more conservative than men. There-is the
suggestion that is the case john. Obviously to some extent
we have to accept some blame in communication in those areas
that I've mentioned. By example, points that are of a
particular interest to women, we haven't communicated our
successes there, I think, as we should have. I don't haveI
any feeling of agro about this. I just think that we have a
good story to tell to the electorate generally, and in a
sense, to women in particular and we've just got to
communicate that story better.
JOST: well maybe you make the point though, that men and
women do have similar, these days, certainly have similar
aspirations, perhaps react similarily. But, as I was
thinking that perhaps the problem with the female vote it
that women do have control, I think, of most expenditure in
households and they, when they go down to the supermarket,
are perhaps aware that there is not as much money now as
there was a few years ago to spend and they feel that
PHt well that's not right. Lets got the facts right.
That simply ion't right. There has been in real terms a
five per cent increase in average real per capita income.
And that's because while there hasn't been a real reduction
in real wages, there has been an enormous increase in
employment. So more people in households are employed.
we've increased jobs, as you know, four times faster than
the previous government. We are increasing them more than
twice as fast as the rest of the world. So there are more
people in jobs and we have increased the level of benefits
in real terms. So it is simply not right of you to say that
there is less money. in average real per capita terms a
five per cent increase since we've been in office. I 1VW I WW X C7 % 7 1CP r-qV=
W -o W I-.
3.
JOST: What about the suggestion that over the last five or
six years there has actually been a sort of reduction in our
overall living standards though?
PM: if you take an employedtperson at the beginning and an
employed person at the end, thre has been a reduction
because there has been a reduction in real wages. I'm
simply saying if you take average per capita in a household
income, then there has been a five-per cent increase, anid
that is simply because there are more people in households
in employment. The benefits for people at the lower level
of income, and particularly what we gave done in regard to
sole parents and where you've got kids living in low income
areas, all we've put in there, for instance, has meant that
taking the combination of the increase in jobs and the
increase in benefits that there has been this increase in
income. Now that doesn't mean, and I don't avoid the fact
that for some people who have been continously in
employment, there has been a reduction in standards. The
interesting thing about our opponents on this has been that
they have been trumpeting around the country that there has
been a reduction in standards, and they put fancy figures on
it $ 50 a week. And yet you pick up this document that he
wants to live by, but which he'll die by, this Future
Directions, and you go to the very heart of that document
and they attack us for protecting the standards of people.
They say that there has been a loss of national income
because of the decline in the terms of trade, national
income's gone down but this awful Labor Government has
protected the standards of the people in the community.
They can't have it both ways.
JOST: well of course that is somthing you've got to Bell
very hard to people isn't it. The fact that, and I would
imagine the economists would agree with this statement, that
if the Liberals came in they may well be much harsher with
the electorate on the economic front than your Government.
PM: Well that's one of the horns of many of the dilemmas on
which they are stuck. Because they are saying, with
different voices, but they are saying that they will cut
expenditures more than we-have. But, you notice John that
they are reluctant in the extreme to the point of total
refusal at this stage to say where they will cut. They will*
not be able to go up to an election and that's quite a
long way off the election but they will not be able to go
into the election simply saying we'll cut more, without
saying where.
JOST: Well Prime Minister, still using Clive Robertson~' s
interview with you last night as a counter point. You
mentioned....... a life after politics, doing interviews,
a particular of interviews with international figures.
PM: Not just international, with some Australian people
too.
_ r
4.
JOST: Of course. That wasn't the question I was 9oing to
ask. I was going to say what impact personally electoral
loss, electoral defeat would have on you.
PM1 On?
JOST: On you?
PM: Well I don't accept that there is going to be electoral
defeat. I mean, that's such a hypothetical question I don't
face that.
JOST: I think that there's a chance that you could. I
think that this election is going to be the hardest election
you've fought.. I think that you're the life of the
Government, you've been there for six years, with interest
rates, inflation, maybe there's a little bit of hope is
abating down there among the people and
-7 WW-= 9 IWW 0 W-V Cr -Iwz W
PM.-I don't believe that's true, I think hope is rising, it's entitled to.
In Api, the Treasurer, Paul-will be announicing the significant tax cuts which we
targeted, as they should be ,_ or electoral reasons, because of the restraint.
that's been exearcised, they'll be targetted towards those people in the cannunity
' who noed and deserve assistance. So, I think that we're going through a tough
period at the mm~ ent for sane of the reasons you're talking about, but I have no
sense of pessiniu. i
JOST: Well when you were advised last year about tbe paramsters for this year' s
budget, Treasury obviously got it wrong and caused -the Government to get it wrong
Oni thG qwsntion of how strongly the Government was going to grow.
PM: Not jusL Treasury, I mean, economi~ cs as we know, it's true to say that it.' s
not an exact science, you've got to makB the best assessments that you.-can, it's
a very caiplex profesiion because you've not only got to make judgements. about your~
own internal operations of the Australian economy~, but very much also you've got to
try and got it right about the level of international activity, and that iapinges
upon the prices that you receive for your eqports., There' s a cau~ lex. interaction
of decisions by individuals and groups here and all over the world which are going
to, in the end, say what happens. Now, it in true that there was an underestimate
of the level of activity and what we've done sinply, John,. is what ' we've done
through six years. When ' we are confronted with a given . set of economic circmtnatnces
f tich require action, albeit tough action, we take it. As I keep saying, and I want
~ o inpress upon your listeners and I know they're intelligent ad will uzzderutand
it, they will know thaL Bob Hawke wouldn't want to have interest rates for one day
higher than is necessary. I mean, I'Im no I dot I know people don ' t liJ~ e high
interest rates. And they are there, high, now, trying to bring back activity because
that is in the betst inter~ sts of this country, which I ' m about trying to do the best
for. It would be against the interests of Australia and Australians to allow this
level of activity to continue, because we can't sustain a level_ of iffpoits which
goes with that level of activity. OK? You've got to do the tough thing and the tough
thing is high interest rates. I don't like doing it but it's the right thing,
and I will not refrain fromn taking what is the right action in the interests of this
country. Just as last night, I mean I was up tiLl.-I got to bed about half past two
this mo~ rning because we had this long, long, long Cabinet session where we finally
had to make a decision about the extra airpor~ t capacity in Sydney. Now the easy,
political decision John, would've been to say, no extension at Kingsford-StiaLh,
77.
-W L-W
6
because we've gut seats around. there which I frankly acknowledge will be put at. sos
risk because of the position we've taken. But I changed my view. I originally
thought when I started to became INMDIBLE this, that the econncmics of it,
as well as aviation principles, would suggest you go straight out to Badgory's.
The mrIm I looked at it, the more I got... with . infonmation in response. to questions
I asked... the more it was clear that the right decision for this country, for Sydney,
for the aviation industry, for tourinm, the more it becme clear that the right
decision was a tough political one, We took it.
JOST Where does it leave Gary Punch, your Aviation Minister Ais basically standing
four-square against the decision Cabinet took. last night..
PM: I've got to honestly say that iL's created difficulties for Gaxy. But
rre. say this, in respect of him. No person could've more strongly, outside
Cabinet argued his case. And I say, in tribute to him, that he argued his
strongly, and franom his perspective, very effectively in the Cabinet. let and inside tt
case
JOST: Are you going to leave him in the position?
PM: Well I've had a discussion with him and I said well look you just think about
it Gary, it's up to you to cane back to me and give nm your thoughts.... as the first
step in my thinking... I want you to think about it. In a very mature way ho had.
that discussion with me this morning, early, and he'll come back to me and give
me his thoughts and in the light of his thoughts I'll make a decision.
7
JOST: Well obviously he has a position for himself, but
clearly you'd have a position for the Government. And if
you've got a bloke who has opposed it, it would be a lot
easier-and make a lot of sense, would it not, to put him
into another portfolio. And it might give you the
opportunity to shuffle a few people around as well?
PM: well, prima facie there is a case of obviously if he
were to say that well he doesn't think that comfortably he
could do it, if that was his view, well I would have to take
that into account, and I would. But you talk about creating
the opportunity for some extensive reshuffle. There is no
extensive reshuffle required. If you look now at the end of
six years in office with this Government and compare it with
the six years ' of my predecessors, this has been a remarkably
stable Government, it is regarded as one of outstanding
calibre. You have the situation where the senior figure on
the Opposition* Howson, the Shadow minister for Finance,
spoke of it properly as, you know the outstanding Ministry
since the war. It is. But if a slight change is judged
desirable in the circumstances to which you refer, it will
be made.
JOST: It just seems that there are a couple of queries
about the Ministry. And I certainlywudarewtio
that it has been a very stable ongoing administration. But
people get tired. We've got Senator Peter Walsh sort of
saying, feeling enervated I guess and feeling that he might
like to get out.
Pm: well let me pick that up quickly. Again I didn't try
and dodge this issue. I acknowledged quite freely that
Peter had come to see me and he said he was tired. And he
was. He's got, in many senses, one of the worst jobs in the
ministry. JOST: Oh, he's got to be a bastard all the time.
PM: That's right. It's not a word I'd normally use on air,
but that's--a-fair description. He's Mr No so often to
proposals which intrinsicall are worthwhile, but taking the
overall view just can't be dlforded, or have to be cut back.
And Peter is not an ogre. I mean Peter is a very, very
decent committed bloke whose concern with the wel1fare of
ordinary Australians
JOST: maybe you'd like another track to run around?
PM: well, I don't think so. it's just that it's very, very
intellectually and psychologically enervating to be having
to be Mr No, Mr tough guy. And he's honest enough to say
that he's psychically a bit run down with it and of course
it's added to by the fact that he's West Australian and that
adds a bit more pressure. But the important thing is this.
We talked about it maturely and Peter is so committed to
this Government, and what it's about, he said yes, I will
stay.
pP WN p Tq I-MP
a.
JOST: Wesley Vale. I mean that seemed to me to be, and
I've got to be honest with you, just starting from the
ground floor up, they put it in the wrong place, both sides
indulged in misinformation it's very hard for observers
like me to know who was telling the truth and I'm talking
about how dirty it was going to be. it's a fantastic
proposal and proposition for Australia economically
speaking. But we had the Tasmanian government going in one
direction, half your Government going I mean obviously you
people wanted to do it. You had the conservation movement
against it and you had Graham Richardson in the end arguing
against it with a lot of scientific support from CSIRO. A
terrible shambles really.
PM: well in one sense a shambles, but not as far as my
Government was concerned and you can't put a position of a
split in my Cabinet. I mean all of us
JOST: I'm not say it was a split. You've got to have
arguments obviously.
FM: Yes. Discussions. But there wasn't one person in the
Cabinet, Graham Richarson Included who, in principle, was
against the idea of a mill, because what we need as far as
we can is to have value added processes to our raw material.
And that is good in terms of our balance of payments
considerations, employment considerations. But, let me make
it quite clear to your listeners, I've said it before and
its important that it be said again. while I'm Prime
minister, while this Labor Government is in power we will
pursue development, but not development at any price, and
the price was too high. We made it clear that they just
couldn't assume that they could get away with no
environmental impact statements, which is essentially what
they tried to do and we expected that they would have higher
standards. Then they put to us, well a proposal which
wasn't acceptable and we weren't going to have thirteen
tonnes of these chlorides going into the ocean every day.
-V W-=
9,
tape break
Pm: Yes we will be doing that but there can be no
suggestion that the joint venturers were booby trapped.
JOST: They tried to booby trap you..
PM: I don't want to be nasty about them and I don't intend
to be but it's quite clear they thought they'd be able to
steamroll the Tasmanian Government and it's not too
difficult to do that and they did it. They seemed to think
that we were so desperate for the mill and foreign exchange
and so on that we would just cop anything. Now, they had no
reason to believe that. The a~ reement between us and
Tasmania was that Tasmania would handle, they had to make
their decisions and then once they had done that it would
come to us. That was understood all the way along. But
through that it's quite clear that we had strong views about
standards and in the end they conceded that it wasn't what
they were proposing, weren't the highest standards at all.
They certainly weren't. I'm not going to cop a situation
where there is danger to the environment which means that
we'll hand onto future generations an Australia which has
been unnecessarily damaged. When we had, as we did then,
the report from the Cs IRO, then no responsible government in
receipt of that advice could have gone ahead. The mark of
the difference between me and my Government and Howard and
the opposition and I hope all Australians understand this.
What did Howard say? It doesn't matter a damn about the
CSIRO. He said, we would've gone ahead. well that's the
difference and that's the difference going up to the next
election. Development at any rice, whatever the best
independent scientific advice isof hurt to this
environment, damage to future generations, the oppositiongo
ahead. well if that's what Australians want then they've
got that choice.
JOST: There's one question that alluded me, we changed the
subject. I was going to ask you, we're looking at an
inflation rate I think at the moment of . about-7-8%, the
Budget parameters were for about we're looking at
interest rates at about 16, I'm not sure what the Budget
parameter was for that. There is some talk about interest
rates slipping up a bit higher, there seems to me a bit of
inflationary pressure building up in the United States.
Could you put a figure on wha? you think the inflatior rate
will be by the end of this year and what you think the
interest rate will be?
PM: No, when the Treasurer brings down the Budget in August
then, as is usual, as part of that process there will be
figures contained in the associated papers which will set
out the assumptions as to the inflation expectations. MM WW WW cr R7 CV-P
C 19 CL. CO'S fin
JOST: Can you see moderation?
PM: Yes I can, there will be moderation in inflation in my judgment.
JOST, And interest rates?
PM: Well I've said at the beginning of this year, when I was asked a very sinple and
perhaps not very sophisticated question, I was asked in January would interest
rates fall by the end of . the year and I said yes, I believe they would. Now that's
not a prediction in regard to the inmediate fuLure. This is March we're talking,
we're still in March and my judgrent is, as it was in January, that before the end
f the year they'll fall, but I am not going to do a disservice to the markets and
4ore importantly to the people of this country by sitting here in your . studio
or anywhere else and saying tamorrow or the next week this is what interest rates
will be. That would be counter-productive and I don't intend to do it. I'm sinply
saying that in terms of how I see the fundamentals moving through this year, that
before the end of this year interest rates will be moving down.
JOST: A lot of people hope you're right.
PM: And I hope I'm right. I mean I repeat the point I made before John, just let
me talk directly to your listeners. There's no-one that'd be happier than Bob
Hawke if 1 believe that the best thing for Australia now would be to bring interest
rates dowm. Bang, it'd be done, because I know it'd be nice and politically it'd be
-a ut, but it would be economically wrong and I'm not going to do the econanically
wrong thing.
JUS T Well, as you pointed out it's March and next month it's April and we've got
an econan c statement comning next April and there are going to be tax cuts in that.
I was wondering if there are going to be any micro-econnmic measures in it as well.
PM. Not necessarily right in the April Statement. as we have been continuously on
micro-econanic reforms, very inportant areas like the waterfront and the Maritire
industry. We will, not necessarily in the April Statement, but in the period
in the near future after that be making a series of statements and announcing
decisions in inportant areas affecting the micro-econcmy.
JOST: Well, one I suppose is the transport industry) another one and closely related
is the waterfront, as you mentioned. Well, tle problem there, what is it? Is it
the unions? mw. W% W 9W 3. C7 10 C P a 0u
s~ S WW S C ~ C I-S 3.
11
PM. It's a mixture of attitudes of unions and employers and let me say just how longentrenched
this has been. I just ask you to remember this. If you look, we'r now
in 1989. We go back to 1949, forty years. Of that forty years, John, thirty-one of..
them, conservative governrents. So if you've got entrenched attitudes and positions
in Australia, you talk about now, it's as I say, thirty-one of those forty years
conservative governments. We have done more in this six years than in the whole of V
previous period carombined, to tackle problems of the micro-econamy. Just lot ine
quickly remind you and your listeners of the sort of things we've done... of
deregulating the financial market, bringing in the banks, the massive tariff reforms,
ending of the two airline policy, making competitive your Goverrment business
enterprises so that they are subject to competition and that they've got to operate
on camrercial lines, now tackling this area of the waterfront and Maritime industry.
SNow over all that period that I've been talking about, unions and employers in those
two industries have adopted attitudes and practices which have been . o their
mutual advantage, but which not in all circumstances have necessarily been to the
advantage to this country. Some of their arrangemnts... I'mn not trying to set them
up as an evil conglomerate of always acting against the interests of the country,
somae of the things that they have done together have been to the advantage of the
country, not all of them. And it's only this Governmant which is now really
effectively; tackling those issues. And I can say this. That during this year, during
this year there will be significant changes on the waterfront and in the Maritire
industry brought about as a result of our activities.
JOST: I think a lot of people reckon it's overdue, a lot of people felt that maybe
the Government's been a bit slow to move on the waterfront.
PM: Well, at least we are moving and we' ll get results. For thirty-one years under
that nmob it got worse and worse.
JOST Election timing. We've heard Mr Howard suggest July.
PM: Who takes any noLice of Mr-IvwqcrA.
JOST, Oh well, lots of people take a lot of notice of himn. I mean you know that.
You said he was assiduous and hard-vworking end loyal last night.
PM: Yes, yes I did.
12
JOST: Anyway, leaving aside that because I ' m being frivolous but the point is that
he's certainly talking election in July. I suppose the favourable option
fraom my point of view, judging your position would be Noveber, Deoeirer or
February.
PM: I don't really want to go on and on about this. No, I'm not objecting to thequestion
John. I'm sinply saying that what I've said is that the real eriool
that one would talk about, whether it was this Government or any uLber, the sort of
period you'd be talking about would be the end of this year up until the middle
of next year. Now that's the... I've got no reason to change that. That's the
sort of picture. I'm not planning for an election this year, I'm not planning for
an election this year. It may be though, in terms of what I've said that towards
0the end of this year, that's a reasonable tine to be thinking about your timn-spaon
for an election. But I haven't got in my mind that ' 89 is an election year.
I'm not thinking of ' 89 as an election year.
JOST: It makes sense of course to go next year, after your budget's care in. There
are going to be social welfare rreasures there... you've hiad your tax cuts earlier
in the year, they' ll bite. Presumably interest rates will be dropping.. I mean if the
theory's in place you'll be well-placed to go in February. Or, as you say, between
now and February and whenever you liks.
PM: I think the contrast is going to be there between the Governmsnt that has the
guts to make the tough decisions and do things which has got policies and a pretty
stark alternative and that will be there in the whole of the period that I'm talking
about.
JOST: if you're re-elected you are looking at ta ton
year term as Prime Minister and as we said, we've had
this situation of a stable administration with consistent
performances by your Ministers, but obviously you're going
to have do a lot of rebuilding in your last term in Government
aren't you? You will probably be looking at departing at
same stage. *. pin you down on that but it's a fact of
life and other people, very important people like Johnny
Button, and we could go on-
PM: Let me just make the point. That's a fair obsorvation
that you're going to. In terms of stability of people in
important positions, we've now been in six years so that
gives you an opportunity of a pretty fair comparison with
the seven years of the other mob. There's been an infinitely
greater stability in the tenure and the performance of senior
Ministers in my Government than not only in that previous
government but just about in any other. It is a fact of
life that people after six years or more are going to say
some of them are going to say well, ok I've made my
contribution, it's time to move either to another portfolio
or to move on. I'm in the very fortunate position, the
Party is, the Government, is, and the people of this country
are, that on my backbench I've got a range of people of
very considerable talent. The contrast between the Government
and the Opposition is Just remarkable. I have senior Liberal
People saying to me that they wouldn't give people on the
other side a job in their enterprises. And they contrast
that with the Government side. There's an enormous amount
of talent there. So when as we get into that next stage
some people want to have a rest, I'm in the fortunate position
of having a great pool of talent from which I can..
JOST: You've got Simon Crean coming through too. What
sort of PM do you think he'll make?
PM: I've said, as has Paul, that it's going to be good
having Simon there as a person upon whom at some stage they
will be able to look and perhaps call for leadership. The
front runner without any question is Paul Keating.
JOST: Do you think after Simon Creani leaves the union movement
that he'll be easily replaced?
PM: The ACTU has been able to replace poople with talent
over time.
JOST: It seems to me though that every time they stick
a NSW bloke in there he's there for a little while and then
he's replaced by a Victorian. Cliff Dolan lasted about
4 minutes and we've got this new bloke Ferguson, is it.
14
PM: Yes, but a very significant difference in age. Cliff
came to the Presidency of the ACTU obviously at the latter
stages of his career in the trade union movement. He took
it, and it was understood that he took it in terms that
he wasn't going to be there for very long. With Martin,
he's a much youngor guy.
JOST: Could I ask you a personal question?
PM: Just for a change.
JOST; How's Hazel?
PM: She is beaUt. stie's just something special.
JOST: I'd have to say I reckon you needed a facelift more
than she did.
PM: I can't tell whether you do, you've got it covered
with all that fuzz. But from what I can see you wouldn't
go so badly with one yourself mate.
JOST: I think if I could have the fuzz sort of pushed up
a bit it could fill that big gap between the ears. It'd
be very nice. I've got no obJection to people having
I actually thought all the discussion was in rather bad
taste actually.
PM: Well the simple fact is I thought she looked beaut
as she was but she is her person.
JOST: As a matter of fact a good friend of mine was in
hospital with her, I knew all about it.
PM: I thought you might have. If Hazel wanted to do it
then that's the beginning and the end of it as far as I'm
concerned. I simply would like also to take this opportunity
of saying what I said on the Bert Newton show the other
day, to slam that bloody Sunday Press rag here for the totally
untrue and I won't use the word I was going to use bastardry
that they went in with on Sunday that she had done it under
pressure from the Party. Totally, absolutely maliciously
untrue. JOST: Prime Minister, I think on that note I'll let you
have the last word.
PM!ñ Thanks mate.
JOST: Thanks very much for Joining us.
PM: it's a pleasure as always John.
JOST: We'll see you again no doubt.
PM: Sure.
ends