TRANSCRIPT OF ' THE RAY MARTIN SHOW' ( WITH PAUL KEATING)
MONDAY, 21 AUGUST 1989
E& OE PROOF ONLY
MARTIN: We now have, first time ever on television or radio
together, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke and Mr Paul Keating,
the Treasurer. Would you please welcome them both. I'll tell
you what, you talk about wanting to go into television when
you finish politics, live television's kind of fun. Thanks
for your help, thanks for coming here, very much indeed. Now
it gets us to the opening story, I suppose, which, of course,
is about the pilots strike. I had to come down from Cairns
yesterday. It took me about fifteen hours, including a
charter flight, to do it. Why are you so tough with this,
Bob? PM: Because they're exceptionally greedy. They're making a
totally unjustified claim which in itself is wrong. But if
they were to succeed, they would wreck the whole wage-fixing
system in this country which has produced for the great bulk
of Australians a much better say. We've created one a half
million jobs because ordinary wage and salary earners have
exercised restraint.-
MARTIN: But why haven't you been this tough on judges or
politicians or businessmen?
PM: Judges are not within the Industrial Relations Commission
system, the award structure system. They have, in fact,
exercised enormous restraint over the time. They've had
decisions and recommendations of the Tribunal knocked back as
have politicians. In respect to the business community, Paul
and I have been as tough as we possibly can to ask them to
restrain. MARTIN: But I read at the weekend there's something like
three hundred and eighty Australians who earn more than a
billion dollars a year. That's not restraint, is it?
-2-
KEATING: Maybe in the top end of the executive area, that's a
possibility. But, as Bob said, it's not part of the general
wage system and we've been running a wage system which has
been delivering as large as possible wage increases as the
economy can afford, plus tax cuts, plus employment.
MARTIN: Put it in perspective for us though if you will,
Paul. I mean, if the pilots get their money, if they get
their thirty percent, does that blow the whole wage system
out? PM: Yes.
MARTIN: Simple as that?
S KEATING: Simple as that.
MARTIN: So you can't afford to lose?
PM: We can't afford to lose and we won't lose. I mean, what
the pilots have got to understand is this. They are simply
not going to win. If it means shutting down the system for X
number of weeks, it will be shut down. These pilots have got
to understand the fact that they're flying up there, you know,
above the clouds, in the clouds, but they are not above and
beyond ordinary wage and salary earners. You look at your
audience, the people here, they're, themselves or their
husbands. Look, a person who's a tradesperson, the training
involved in becoming a qualified tradesperson is, in a sense,
more difficult that becoming a pilot. I mean, I learnt to
fly. MARTIN: I heard you say-that. Do you have a licence s till?
O PM: No. I flew with the Royal Airforce when I was at Oxford.
And, look, learning to fly is not something extraordinarily
difficult. As Chippy said, if you can't learn to fly in seven
hours, you know, you're not . Now the people who are out
there..
MARTIN: But that underestimates the responsibility though,
Bob? PM: Of course, but their responsibility hasn't increased by
thirty percent overnight. I mean, bus drivers have got
responsibility. There are more people, there's about, at the
maximum, I mean, there's about six percent of the Australian
population fly. But, all the time, people are, their lives,
the majority of peoples lives are in the hands of a whole lot
of other people who don't kid themselves about the glamour
that pilots try and attach to themselves.
-3-
MARTIN: The six percent maybe right. But I found yesterday
circling a tourist spot like Cairns, flying back yesterday, I
read that tourism now has become our biggest export earner
above wool. So it's more than six percent. It's affecting
all those people who want to come to Australia to spend lots
of money?
PM: You don't handle this, at least we don't, there might be
some people, like the Opposition, who said well, let's have
just free-bargaining, let them negotiate, if they can
negotiate thirty percent, that's good. But we don't. I mean,
we've got a system where the people here, the ordinary
viewers, they have exercised great restraint and that's meant
jobs and jobs and jobs. Now these people, look, let's see
what their previous President said, just a short quote.
Captain Fitzsimmons who was the previous President. He said,
there is no other pilot group in the world that enjoys your
overall pay structure. That's what he said about his own
people. But they want to go for a hike of thirty percent so
that ordinary people who are exercising their restraint, we
won't. MARTIN: Do you care if they de-register, if the fact that
they go on the open market and can negotiate with companies?
KEATING: Once they lose their award structure, then they are
on their own and they're on their own in a position where
their companies know that such a pay claim will destroy their
companies because it would flow into other areas of their
employment and where they know the Government believes that
will destroy the wages system.
MARTIN: While you've been in the air today, in fact, you were
O told on Don Chipp's radio program that the Pilots Association
is saying today that they think management have deliberately
inflamed this, in fact they want to destroy the system at the
moment? PM: It's nonsense. I mean, it just is not the case. What
the management wants or the Government wants and what the
public, I'm sure, wants is for pilots to understand that they
are no different from anyone else. If the overwhelming
proportion of Australian working men and women are prepared to
operate within a system, exercise restraint and get benefits
from it, then pilots aren't any different. If they want to go
outside the system, which is what they're saying, okay, but
let them understand, if they go outside the system, then they
lose all their rights as well as their obligations and they
will be hit.
MARTIN: Alright. The last question on that. Would you bring
-4-
in the RAAF pilots. vuld you bring in freelance pilots at
four o'clock this afternoon if the pilots decide they're
not going to abide by the rules?
PM: We had, I had Anseri... ana Australian in-about two and
half hours yest ? diFa~~_ ith me. Just let me say this. We have
contingency plans in respect of providing skeletal services,
you'll never be able to replace the existing service. We'll
do everything we can to provide emergency and other services
for the Australian public and when the airline operators take
action against these pilots, as they will with our full
support, when they take that action against individual pilots
and the Pilots Federation, they'll have our full support and
they've got to understand, if they go outside the system which
they're talking about, and I don't want them to, I plead with
them, stay inside, let's be like everyone else. But if you go
out, you haven't got the previous experience. That's what
used to happen before and that's what's motivating. Whenever
they went out before the Accord, either Ansett or TAA would
give in game, set and match. Different game this time,
boys. You go out and it's war.
MARTIN: Alright. And the war again, just to emphasis that,
Paul, as you say. There is no way in the world that you can
afford, there's no way they can win this?
KEATING: No, well, I don't believe there is. And the cost of
them winning it is that basically the discipline in the wage
system deteriorates and that means, that has a substantial
meaning for every person as I've said, for every
person in the labour market. It means fewer jobs for
Australians because it would mean those in employment might
gain some temporary short-term pay advantage.
MARTIN: Alright, let me shift along. It's been called the
Bob and Paul show on the road. Yesterday's Melbourne papers,
Sydney papers, Brisbane. Is it the Bob and Paul show? Why
have you decided to go on the road?
PM: Well, you've asked us to.
MARTIN: Look at that photograph. That was the Age yesterday
on the front page?
PM: Couple of mates there, that's what it is. We were on the
road this week because this fellow brought down his seventh
Budget on Tuesday. As usual, a very, very good Budget and
very well received and we made the decision, before he brought
down the Budget, that in this period after the Budget we were
going to be out selling it. That's what we do every year.
KEATING: We do every year though. Every year we do the same,
I do the same.
MARTIN: In fact, you've
We've asked you a lot before?
KEATING: We've been on individually before. But I'm doing a
lunch after your program, Ray, which is, I think, my seventh
appearance at. You know, it's a routine thing I do. It's the
Institute of Directors, it's on after each Budget and then I
do the other capital cities. So we do this and Bob does the
same.
MARTIN: Let me clear up then what I've read in the papers all
weekend. The report, using the Aussie vernacular, that Bob
Hawke welched on an agreement that you two had about Bob
stepping down from the prime ministership in this term. Was
there such an agreement? Did he welch?
KEATING: No. And the fact of the matter is, well I mean, I
think that the picture you just had on demonstrates the point.
I mean, we're becoming, you know, I think a long-term team. I
mean, in these jobs it's very hard, well particularly in the
job Prime Minister.
MARTIN: It's got to be long-term because the PM has already
said he's going to be around for five or six?
PM: I'm not going to be around for ever.
MARTIN: But five or six years. I mean, last year when I
spoke, a year ago I spoke to you for A Current Affair and you
said PM: Don't exaggerate. What I've said is that I will lead
this Government into this coming election, when it comes, and
I would think another one after and then, you know, it's time
to look about standing down.
MARTIN: That's certainly four years we're talking about?
PM: Yeah, four, yes, that sort of order. But what I've said
also is that I and this Government and may I say this country
is terribly fortunate that sitting next to me we've got a
bloke who is superbly equipped to follow me.
MARTIN: Are you prepared to sit as Treasurer for four more
years? KEATING: Well I think the thing that matters most to Bob and
to me is that this is a once and for all opportunity for
-6-
Australia to restructure itself before the turn of the
century, to re-equip and re-direct itself to begin the next
century. And that's been, I think, more important to both of
us than our own particular interests, personal interests, and
in the doing of it, you know, we're well and truly advanced
along the way through it. I think we'd like to see it come to
fruition.
MARTIN: What's happened, Paul, have you become more patient
in this. I mean, you weren't saying this a year ago?
KEATING: Oh, yes, I was. But the answer is I am becoming
more patient too. I mean, as you get older, you get a bit
more patient.
MARTIN: You also say it's a thankless job being Treasurer.
Are you prepared to be Treasurer for four more years?
KEATING: Yes, I think so. I mean, if
MARTIN: Doesn't sound very convincing?
KEATING: Well, as I say, if the public will have us, we'll
have them. You know, that's the long and short of it. No, I
think that, well this is an interesting job because the way in
which this Cabinet operates. Both the Prime Minister and the
Treasurer and a number of other Ministers in our key
expenditure group really debble. in all areas of policy. So
it's not just the Treasury, it's not just the limited
experience of the Treasury. So it's a very interesting period
in Australian life and, you know, one couldn't be doing
anything more socially useful.
MARTIN: Can we clear up-. Is there an accord between the two
of you about when you are going to go?
PM: An accord.
MARTIN: Yes. Is there an understanding between the two of
you about when you are going to go?
PM: We don't have an accord. I mean, we obviously talk about
these things and what I've indicated publicly is in line with
the sorts of things I've said to Paul. And, I mean, I think
there's a bit too much of a tendency to personalise these
things. I mean, we're honest people. We had a bit of a spat
last year, we didn't deny that, we had a bit of a spat. But
the fundamental nature of our relationship is such that was
quickly fixed up. And Paul puts it right, I mean, as human
beings and politicians, of course we have our own
personalities, our ambitions and so on. But the basic thing
-7-
about Keating and Hawke is that they want to see the
production of a more economically prosperous and a more
socially just Australia. And our joint conviction is that
together, at this stage, we're the capable of doing that.
MARTIN: Alright. Can I just ask you then, I mean,
categorically, Bob, whenever the next election is, whether
it's November or May, whenever it is, that when Australian
voters go to vote for the Labor Party, they will be voting for
Bob Hawke as Prime Minister for three years, categorically?
PM: The term of that Parliament, yes.
MARTIN: No equivocation?
PM: No equivocation.
MARTIN: Alright, fine. Thank you. Stay with us for a
moment.
RM: Has life become more boring?
PM: How could life be boring as Prime Minister of the best
country in the world. No way.
RN: But you don't look like you're having as much fun as
you did back in those days in general.
PM Different sort of fun, I'll tell you what I wouldn't
if its a question of drinking grog by a pool and
being Prime Minister of Australia there's no bet.
RN: What about the image-makers, I mean so often we hear
now the power of television for politicians and
politics, the fact that you take more care of your hair
these days than we certainly saw in those days.
PM: Still got some to take care of fortunately.
RN: The suits colour coordinated and all these sorts of
things. Also are you conscience of the image-makers,
do you ever have to say to your minders back-off and
just leave me alone?
PM: Yes, occasionally. Sure.
RN: What are they trying to make of you?
PM: They've got a responsibility, I mean, if you're Prime
Minister of Australia you just can't be Bob Hawke, the
President of the ACTU. I mean, either you're dinkum
about your country in leading or you're not. And so
they have a responsibility. But I also have the right
occasionally to say well I'll do it my way when I
think my judgements better than theirs, that's the way
it is.
RN: And you do that quite often?
PM: Well yes, reasonably so.
RN: Paul what about you, on the suggestion of the reports
that you've been told to cut down on your swearing, cut
down on some of the language you use in Parliament.
PM: You ought to hear him in Cabinet.
T: There is a lot of myth about that Ray, a lot of myth
about that I might say. But it sort of makes it a
colour piece to the I mean when the Canberra
journos get to their Friday pieces they need a bit of
colour in their to sort of mix it up. So they make
more of it than it really is.
RM: But is that a fact of life, the fact that if you are
saying scumbag, if you are saying some of the things
that are said in Parliament
T: I've said that once in 20 years but I've never heard
the end of it you know.
RN: Is that right. There's been a few other lines thrown
in their as well but is that do you have to be far
more conscious of it than let's say than Menzies or
Arthur Callwell would have had to be 20 years ago
before television ( inaudible).
T: Well it was a much tougher Parliament in those days
than it is today. I mean even when I first went their
years ago it was a very hard place. It is quite a
polite chamber these days. I mean sure you'l11 get a
fair bit of noise and you get interjections and you'll
get all that points of order and all that sort of stuff
but in terms of the sheer sort of personal invective, I
don't think the place is a patch on what it was you
know.
RN: But there is so many pollsters, there is so many
image-makers now, I mean, like as Bob Hawke just said a
moment ago, do you have to throw them off and say just
get away and let me be myself are the people trying to
say look if you want to be a future PM this is what
you've got to do?
T: I don't think we are very affected or confected. I
mean we are pretty well as what you see is what you
get.
RN: But will you go and review this as Laurie Oakes says in
the Bulletin. Do you look at yourself on television
afterwards?
PM: Not always, I mean, but I always take the view whether
its about how you perform on television whatever you
do, if you've got the view that you can never do
something better than you've done it before, that you
can't learn from what you've done, then you're a mug.
I've always believed in life that I can do something
better than I've done it before.
RN: So you go back and check and see how you performed?
PM: It is quite strange in television, you would know, you
could quite unconsciously develop a new quirk, you're
not aware of it and it might be distracting to people.
So if you see, well I'm doing that a bit too much, then
you're damn stupid not to learn from that.
RN: But do you protect each other as has been reported?
T: No. Not really. No.
PM: No. No.
RN: There was a " not really" there. I wasn't sure.
T: No. Because I mean, a lot of the time I would see a
very small component of any television I do see again.
I think this will be true of Bob as well.
PM: Absolutely.
T: You don't get a chance to watch stuff. I mean, once it
is gone, its gone.
RN: It is not true that you two are now conscience of John
Hewson and Andrew Peacock being far better television
performers than their predecessors and as a result
you've got yourselves down to these suits or light
suits that you smarten up your act?
PM: No, its nonsense.
T: No. We're our usual
RN: Bob you say its nonsense but I keep reading that and
people out here keep reading that.
PM: Yes well, look, if you believed everything you read.
RN: Not everything, are they all wrong then?
PM: They are wrong, I mean, I have not spent one second
thinking about how I should perform differently because
of Peacock and not Howard, Blunt not Sinclair although
I don't know how long that's going to last, there is a
challenge going on there and its a merry-go-round. So
if you start worrying about their merry-go-round you'd
go mad.
RN: What about the image by the cartoonists then, that the
undertaker image that you have Paul. Does that offend
you, does that upset you?
T: Not really. You pick up one of these sort of handles
one way or another.
RN: But this sort of Zanetti cartoon is that
T: I know, but he's the one who does these most of the
time, Zanetti.
RN: Do you ever ask for an original?
T: Sometimes, occasionally I have.
RN: What about the ad then. In fact we've got the ad from
the Bulletin and its been in the Time magazine and
others around Australia, this one here? Does that
offend you when you see it?
T: Not really. No. Its not too flattering. It looks
like I've sort of had a hard days night. I mean, if
we'd had had the fun we wouldn't mind the image. The
problem is you don't get too many nights like that.
RN: Well Bob do you think as you said a year ago, do you
think that Paul Keating should get out into more
shopping malls, more supermarkets?
PM: I think to the extent that Paul's got the opportunity
of broadening the range of experience. I think its a
good thing. I mean as Treasurer he's got an enormous
responsibility of helping prepare policy and then
talking to sectors of the Australian community that are
decision makers and so on. And for instance after this
he's going to talk to about 400 Institute of
Directors. I need to get the message across. But
there is a lot of that to the extent that he's got the
time like it would be a good thing doing this thing.
But just let me say this about Keating and his image,
it is very important this be said, people have tried to
create this picture of Keating and his
RN: He's a bit wary I think Bob.
PM: Its alright. I don't think he'll worry too much, of
the hard austere top end of town man. Now I can say
this, I've sat there chairing a Cabinet in ERC for
6 1/ 2 years and there is no person in that Cabinet who
is more committed to the interests of the ordinary
Australian, in particular looking after those who
legitimately need looking after than this bloke. I
mean he's a traditionalist in that way and its a pity I
think and its a pity that that fact gets lost in the
other fact that he is at home with the top end of town
with the movers -and shakers he's got to be, he's got
to have a rapport with them and be able to talk to
them. He can do that better than any Treasurer in this
country but never forget the other fact.
RN: But you, Bob, I mean you've been there, you've been
with workers. They're sitting at home now watching
the shift workers they're saying oh come on Bob give
us a break.
PM: Well lets make the point about the workers. Your word
who are sitting at home, there is 1 1/ 2 million more of
those sitting at home or going to be sitting at home at
the end of their work than there were when we came to
office. Four times more work being created under us
than before.
RN: But my point about your suggestion last year, that he
should go out amongst supermarkets is that he doesn't
relate to orindary people. Ordinary people don't see
him the way they see you. They see you at football
games and other games and other things. And they don't
see Paul Keating there.
PM: OK. But look you don't want everyone in the image of
Bob Hawke, you don't what everyone in the image of Paul
Keating.
T: I also get around a bit. I went to the grand final
with Bob last year in NSW.
RM: Who's going to win this year Paul?
T: I'm not sure mate. I think my team
214: Do you know who is in the final five?
PM: South Sydney mate.
T: Canterbury is not going to make it I'm a Canterbury
man.
214: But that is my point do you know who is in the top
five at the moment in the VFL?
T: No I don't.
214: I bet you do?
PM: Yeh. I mean I come from Victoria.
RM: But I'm talking about Sydney, he comes from Sydney.
T: I know but the other thing is Ray. I do get around a
lot. I see a lot of people, I go to a lot of orindary
situations, I mean, I wander around. For instance if
I'm in Sydney, I wander through shops I wander through
the street, people come up and talk to you. And the
other thing is, I started work when I was 15 years of
age in the Sydney County Council in Sydney. I was down
those sub stations under the ground at half past seven
in the morning with the cockroaches running up your
legs.
214: A few years ago.
T: Yeh I know. But I stayed with that group of people
until really I came to Canberra. I mean I lived in my
electorate for 40 years from when I was born.
RN: The point's still you've got to, this is a hard act
to follow. If you're going to be Prime Minister.
Here's a bloke who is seen as a folk hero at the risk
of embarrassing him. Here's a bloke who actually goes
to the football and races you don't. You're the
completely opposite.
T: No but I keep an eye on those interests as well, but I
have another set of interests which I think are also
interesting for Australians, you know. I mean I am
interested in art and music and other things, so is Bob
by the way, and you know
RN: It is often we get the image of you referring to
Australians as trolley pushers and Hills Hoist mob and
so on almost with disdain.
PM: You've used that phrase once.
RN: What was it about?
T: It was about saying it might be better for somebody
living in the far western suburbs of Sydney and
Melbourne, who are living as you often see, people
particularly women home in isolated situations with not
much facility, no density around them, no shopping
centre. And I was simply making the point we ought to
be thinking about the way Australians live that there
is a better way to live. That simply putting people
out, further and further out away from all the
facilities. I should have thought a pretty legitimate
point you know and one. It is very easy for all the
people doing well who are in the inner city or on the
waterfronts or anything else. But for the people who
are not, who are just pushed out there in those
subdivisions, that don't have the kind of
RN: We are talking about fact. I mean you can frown about
what my question is on to now, but I'm talking about
perception. The perception out there is this is the
sort of man who is going to follow you.
PM: Look, life, whether it is political life or other life
life is made up of facts and perception and I would
suggest that in the end, the facts are the most
important thing. And I've said what the fact is about
Keating. The fact is that
RN: Politically they might not be Bob, perceptions can be
more important.
PM: But in the end if Keating was in fact comtemptuous of
ordinary people. If Keating was only concerned with
the topic that would be the most important thing. That
fact.
RN: Sentimental to the last tear drop. When was the last
time you've cried?
T: Its a while since I've cried. But I'm sentimental, you
know, I think one either is or isn't, and I am. But
the point Bob makes about
RN: But what would make you cry? What makes you cry.
T: Oh, some human tragedies
RN: Your family?
T: The family is always the thing that makes you cry.
RN: But would you cry over Chinese dying in Tiernament
Square?
T: No. I didn't cry over it but I was very sad about it.
Very sad.
RN: Why did you cry?
PM: Well look, lets face up to this, I would be
RN: I'm not putting you down.
PM: No. I know you're not. But let's face right up to
it. I would be very much more comfortable publicly if
on occasion I didn't cry in public. I would be much
more comfortable. I get no pleasure out of it. I
don't try and do it. It is a physiological fact of my
life that that happens. It has happened over a long
period of time. Its more obvious now when I'm in the
public eye. If I could do something to stop it I would
because it would be more comfortable. Because it
becomes somewhat disconcerting topic of conversation.
But that is the way I am. And if I've got to take Bob
Hawke, warts and all, well if have to and it doesn't
sound too modest, I'll put up with what I've got
thanks. Including the problems.
T: But again Ray, Bob's point is right. The
sentimentality is one thing but when you talk about
support for families which we've done with the family
allowance in the last couple of years which is
enormous. Support for pensioner renters, support for
pensioners generally, support for single mums with
kids. It takes the sentimentality to the next year's
full step. That-is to help them and that is what the
Government ' s about.
RN: Do you think they know what you're going on about
Paul. Do they recognise that?
T: Oh I think so. I think many people know. I get lots
of nice letters from women and from families.
RN: I was going to ask you about that.
T: A lot of them.
RN: Can I ask you back on the front page again today Mr
Hawke is one of your senior numbers men, numbers
cruncher Robert Ray talking about an election maybe
November, I thought last week you were talking about
May or March?
PM: Yes I was talking about next year. I'm the one who
makes the decision not Robert.
RM: But can't you get your act together, can't you get your
Cabinet ministers, why aren't they, can't you say ' hang
on' its not on.
PM: Getting your act together, now look mate, if you're
talking about getting your act together you're on the
wrong side of politics, have a look at the other mob.
RM: I mean Robert Ray is one of the great numbers crunchers.
PM: Robert Ray is saying that his judgement, it could be
in-opporutune to have one then and that's a fair
comment, it could be, it won't be though.
RM: It could be, I mean you're mudding the water again, in
this year, definitely not this year?
PM: Oh it won't be this year.
RM: It won't be this year, alright.
PM: Yeh, it won't be this year.
RM: OK, alright. What about a debate with Andrew Peacock
when you
PM: I've already said if he's the leader then, which is
becoming increasingly unlikely, increasingly unlikely.
RM: You think he could be gone do you?
PM: Oh yeh, could be gone.
RM: Who will take over?
PM: Well that's a good question. Who do you reckon Paul?
T: Well some of them have got McLachlan in mind, that is
why they're trying to move him out
PM: There is a God.
T: But some others might try and move Chaney down, so
there'd be a God on both counts.
RM: So you don't mind whether it's Fred Chaney or Ian
McLachlan.
T: We take on all comers, we knock over whoever is in
front of us, that's our policy. Just bring them on one
after the other.
RM: It's got nothing to do with arrogance at all?
T: No, no because they're saying they can run the show
better than us, we say just bring you're people on one
at a time, one at a time.
PM: But seriously
RM: Can I be serious about Peacock then, does it stick in
your craw the fact that people say he beat you in
debate last time:
PM: No it doesn't. I've just made the observation if
Andrew and the Libs want to make judgements about 1990,
in terms of 1984, and the condition of Bob Hawke in
1984, no-one will be happier than Bob Hawke because
1990 will not be 1984.
RN: But why can't you say with that confidence then, why
can't you say yes I'll take him on.
PM: I've already indicated that
RN: But you'll do it.
PM: I've already indicated I'm quite happy whoever it is,
and I wasn't just being mischievous I might say before,
Paul and I can be mischievous at times.
RN: I find it hard to believe.
PM: I wouldn't put too serious odds on Andrew leading them
into the next election.
RN: So if it is Fred Chaney or Ian McLachlan you're quite
happy to debate them as well?
PM: Yeh, sure.
RN: Paul, he's callea you, Bob's called you the world's
greatest Treasurer.
T: I got that handle a few years ago, unfortunately from a
Eurpoean magazine, I would have been much better
without it, much, much better without it.
RN: Would you call him the world's, greatest Prime
Minister?:
T: I think it's for anyone leading a social democratic
party likes ours that that is a party of economic
competence with compassion, I think that is a handle I
could very graciously give him, absolutely.
RN. Could you live with that?
PM: Yes.
RM: Now listen you've mentioned earlier about letters you
get, why, according to your press secretary a few
months back, why are you so popular with young women of
Australia.
T: I get a lot of letters from young people generally,
from young people generally, for some reason I do well
with them, but I also do well with all the people I've
helped with the programs I've mentioned before the
family allowance supplement and
PM: Isn't it about time we got on to an area of a different
argument, I mean it's been sweetness and light, which
is a reflection of a reality, but he's been getting a
bit cheeky lately, I mean he's being trying to push
some line, that the research shows that he's the
greatest sex appeal, where did you get that from?
T: There's just a little hint in the Cameron research that
maybe he was not quite sitting on the perch alone in
this respect you see.
RN: Which research was this, Paul.
T: The Cameron research, ANOP's research, there was just
some, some element of rivalry in these stakes.
RN: What do you think that you've got that Bob Hawke
doesn't have?
T: I don't know, it's all in the eyes of the beholder.
RN: Well, have you got those ( inaudible), to try and
improve your act a little, because we noqted that
interview in Canberra that you gave Paul, and we've got
this one for you, which has come courtesy of the secret
garden, you might open that to improve your standing,
and just so you don't feel out of it Bob, you won't be
embarrassed by it, let me assure you, a couple of
things here we think you need.
PM: What you got there mate?
RN: A pair of silk pyjamas for you.
T: Well that'll beat the stripped cotton won't it.
RN: Anita will be pleased, we got them for you today.
T: They're definitely a step up.
PM. You will look reasonably sexy in those son.
T: I suppose I can't parade in them, but I'm sure if I
could, I could probably do better in the Cameron
research for the next quarter.
RN: What you'd outdo the boss?
T: Well, I'd give him a bit more of a nudge.
RN: Can I just ask you with this sort of image, we thought
of Anita as well, we thought of your wife and children
of you parading around in the other old PJ's, that we
thought were pretty boring, we gave you this one, but
if you move up to this job, that you aspire to, can you
live with the sort of public pressure that Bob Hawke
and Hazel Hawke and the family have to have in terms of
the focus on you and your four children.
T: I suppose, it's a case of have to, if that were to be
the case, but it is hard on families I think.
RN: You speak of your son being beaten up in the schoolyard
because his old man is the Treasurer.
T: All that sort of thing happens, and you know, I mean,
Bob attested to that often, you can only do these jobs
with the minimum of distraction for your family, the
best you can, but it depends on the environment.
RN: Would you warn a man, Bob, after your experience that
unless you can take that pressure, unless you can take
the probe of the cameras and your personal life to get
out of it.
PM: Yes, of course, but that is the inevitable, unavoidable
part of, but I've watched Paul in action and let me say
this there really is not just in my Cabinet, but I
don't think there is anyone in Parliament who, given
the pressures that they have has been able to manage
the closeness to his family, that this bloke has. I
mean he shifted to Canberra and gets as much time as he
can with them. Can I just tell a very human story
about him, he won't mind if I do, I'm still going to
tell it. You know we were preparing the Budget. We
were there till all hours of the night, and he came in
the next morning. He was looking a bit whacko, even
more than I thought. He got home and when he got home
Anita had had a new thing there for vacuuming the
carpet. So here's the Treasurer of Australia after
sitting in ERC, had spent about 2 1/ 2 hours, this is
going through to the you know, getting about 2 or 3
hours sleep, this is in the middle of it.
T: No what happened Ray, that one of the kids was sick on
the carpet. Anita said well look you know you can
never quite successfully do with that, I'll get one of
these machines you see to clean it. So I got the
machine, so I did the halls and she said well look you
better do where the kids put their feet in the TV room,
so I said move the thing and I'll do the damn lot. The
next the halls, so I did everything in the house and
finished at two in the morning.
RM: So you just run the country today and now you run the
house.
PM: I'd say it's Anita running it to some extent.
T: The guy in the Cabinet room said, ' well if you offer a
cheap rate, you can do my place'.
RM: Alright, thank you both for talking to us, we
appreciate it very much indeed.
S