PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MARGARET PEACOCK, RADIO 3AK
27 OCTOBER 1989
E OE PROOF ONLY
PEACOCK: Welcome Bob.
PM: Thanks very much Margaret.
PEACOCK: Do you feel a bit scathed by your coming up
C. against the mighty Maggie?
PM: No, I don't feel scathed Margaret. Mrs Thatcher's
become used to getting her own way. She hasn't had a very
strong opposition over there either on the other side of the
Parliament or within her own ranks. She's not really
accustomed to people who have another point of view putting
it up and putting it strongly. In the case of Brian
Mulroney and myself, Brian being as it were on her side of
politics and myself being on the other, we have common views
on these things. And when we stand up and express them I
think she gets a little bit frustrated and says some things
which perhaps normally she wouldn't say.
PEACOCK: She's sort of been on the outer for a while though
on South Africa in particular hasn't she? You'd wonder why
that sort of I'd put it down to arrogance when she's up
against the rest of the Commonwealth Heads of Government
representatives but -she's so stubborn about that stance.
PM: I don't want to ascribe it to arrogance or say just
what it is. But it's certainly against all the evidence.
It is just literally impossible now Margaret to use the
argument that Mrs Thatcher does that sanctions haven't
worked when for instance you have the minister for finance
in the South African government, duPlessis, explicitly
saying two things, two related things. He said that the
sanctions have hurt South Africa, they've imposed severe
economic constraints on them. The second thing he says, and
that will continue to be the case until we change the
political situation. The same thing has been said by the
late Governor of the Reserve Bank of South Africa, deKock,
he said in May the same thing. So when their own members of
government critically, key important members of the
government and of the Reserve Bank, are saying that
sanctions are hurting and that they must change the internal
political situation, it's very silly for Mrs Thatcher to be
saying they're not working.
PEACOCK: would you like to see those sanctions go further,
perhaps harsher economic sanctions?
PM: The ideal situation I would like is no sanctions at
all. I don't favour sanctions for the sake of sanctions..
The phrase I've used is sanctions are not to bring South
Africa to its knees but to bring it to the negotiating
table. The ideal situation would be that the South African
government would say we recognise that we have to end
apartheid. We agree to do that. If that were the case I
would say, and I'm sure it would be accepted, we'll lift
every sanction. If they gave an unequivocal commitment to
negotiate with the non-whites to move to a non-racial
democratic South Africa then sanctions are off. Now,
however, if they're not going to do that, and there's no
indication yet that that's what they're about, then the
sanctions, the existing ones should be maintained and
financial sanctions should be increased.
PEACOCK: Your relationship with Margaret Thatcher, the
slanging match if you like, is very personal. It seems to
me that you really don't like each other.
PM: No I don't think that that's right. I mean just let's
look back. Mrs Thatcher came here last year and she was
kind enough to say it was probably the best overseas visit
she'd had. She was very very warm both directly to me,
speaking to me, and by way of letter. She went back and
spoke very very warmly of the visit out here and asked that
I go over there with some of my senior Ministers this year.
She went out of her way to organise that visit that we had
in the middle of this year to London. She went out of her
way to organise that in a way which gave us every
opportunity of full contact not only wFith ministers but with
business people. She gave me a very very warm dinner at her
residence in 10 Downing Street. So I think it is the case
that the relationship apart from the issue of apartheid in
South Africa has been a sensible one and a reasonably
constructive one. we differ of course in our politics but
we've recognised there's an historical relationship of
importance between our two countries and that there are
opportunities for development of that relationship. ' But on
this issue we simply are polls apart.
PEACOCK: putting it mildly. with Malcolm Fraser not
getting the Secretary-Generalship, you lobbied pretty hard
for him, he was lobbying pretty hard for himself. I mean he
was almost electioneering I would have said in the lead-up.
Were you disappointed or are you quite relaxed about it?
PM: I was disappointed. I honestly believe that Malcolm
was the better of two excellent candidates. We were in the
fortunate position of having two excellent candidates. my
argument in favour of Ma * lcolm was very simple and it's this.
That while South Africa is not the only item on the
. Commonwealth agenda by any means, it never should be,
however-by any standard -it's going to continue to be a very
very important one. It's my judgement that it is what is
going to happen outside the Commonwealth, what's going to be
done by countries like the United States, the European
countries and Japan which will finally, with the
Commonwealth action as well, be decisive in forcing change
in South Africa. And I simply believe that Malcolm, because
of his experience as an Australian Prime Minister and the
stature that he had internationally, that he was in a better
position than the Chief, the other candidate, to bring
pressure in those other countries, to use influence. None
of that thinking reflected anything derogatory about Chief
Anyaoku. I mean I like the man. He's a very good man. He
will be a very good Secretary-General. It was just that
point alone that on this issue of race and colour as you
know Malcolm's credentials are impecable and I think he
could have done that part of the job better. He went very
close to getting it too I might say.
PEACOCK: What was the vote?
PM: I can tell you. I mean I musn't tell you the exact
vote but I can tell you it was less than a handful of votes
required to change hands. So it was very very close. But
once the decision, the vote was taken we all then
unanimously came in behind the one who had the majority. He
will do a very good job.
PEACOCK: Malcolm's gone fishing in the meantime I think.
Back home, the pilots. Australia's sort of been brought to
its knees in a lot of ways because of this pilots' strike
and anybody listening to my program will know that I don't
support the pilots in their action. The Federation I think
has been outrageous. But I'm wondering what the current
situation as you read it is. How many planes are flying?
What capacity? And what sort of pilots?
PM: The current capacity is over 60% and it will be going
up to 80% before very long. That capacity is of course made
up of part of the RAAF and part of the international
airlines, but increasingly it's Australian and Ansett
building up their own capacity through these elements. A
return of some of the Federation pilots, there's some of
those going back consistently now. There are some from the
Australian general aviation industry that have been
recruited and there are foreign pilots. So the building up
of the airlines is going ahead just consistently and
remorselessly. what it will mean Margaret is that when we
go into next year we're just going to have an infinitely
more efficient aviation industry in this country. If you
talk about microeconomic reform this will be a massive
microeconomic reform. It will be about a 60% improvement in
productivity. The basic number of hours that were worked on
average by pilots before was 32 hours at the stick. Now the
basic figure under the contracts is about 55. So what will
happen is that you're going to have just an enormous
increase in productivity and efficiency which will be good
. in the long run for our whole economy and for our tourist
industry in particular..
PEACOCK: Do you see the pilots' federation as an operating
body now? Is there any legitimacy to it?
PM: What I find very difficult to understand Margaret is
why having made the terrible mistakes they did in the first
place and having acted against their own interest and
against the economy's interest in the first place -I guess
everyone can make those sort of mistakes initially -but I
can't for the life of me understand their continuing saga of
stupidity. Before I went away, with the decision of the
Industrial Relations Commission, they were given their
chance then, their sort of final chance of becoming relevant
and part of the action. Because what the Commission said Is
well the individual contracts are the basis for building up
the airlines and that's what's got to happen. The
federation can be considered to have possibly part of this
if they do these things. one, if they drop their embargo on
their members signing contracts with the airlines. And then
C the second and third points being that they accept the
guidelines and the decision of the Commission. Now if
they'd done that, they'd said alright, ok, we've played our
cards, we've lost, we want to be part of the game, if they'd
said that then the Commission could've given them a role.
But they refused to do that and so they've dealt themselves
out. I must say this that I never wanted to be vindictive
about the pilots individually but I must say in regard to
their leadership if I look back over the whole of Australian
industrial relations history I find it impossible to
remember a situation Margaret in which a leadership of an
industrial organisation has so grievously harmed their
members. Because look at what they've done. They've cost
them their jobs. For those who do go back they've cost them
their seniority. Thirdly and very importantly, they've cost
them their redundancy. Because if they'd stayed in the
airlines and there'd been productivity negotiations and
pilots had become redundant then the airlines would've had
to pay them significant redundancy payments, the golden
handshake. But by telling their members to resign they've
lost all that.
PEACOCK: But politically could I put it to you that at the
start it was a very good issue that you could go in hard on
because 30% to any Australian and recent polls show that
only two per cent of Australians actually support the
pilots' federation 30% is really over the top. It's a
very safe issue for you to go in when you're calling for
wage restraint everywhere else. It also suited the
airlines. I mean the silly pilots came up against a
government and massive airlines. From the start they really
couldn't win as far as I could see. But it suited the
airlines because of deregulation and the restructuring that
is now going on in the airline industry.
PM: It suited the airlines but they didn't want the fight.
The airlines wanted to negotiate. They wanted to negotiate
within the guidelines from the Commission. But it was the
pilots who said no. I pleaded with the pilots at the very
beginning. I said negotiate. Do what every other group of
workers in the country has to do and that is to negotiate.
Workers and professional-type workers around the country are
doing this. They are negotiating within the guidelines and
able to get quite significant increases. But the pilots
said no. Now as you rightly say the airlines, while they
are suffering very grievous losses whil. e it's on, taking the
longer term view are going to be better off. But that's not
the course of action they wanted. They did want
negotiation. So did the Government.
PEACOCK: But what about my first point there that it was a
good political issue for Bob Hawke to campaign
PM: I didn't say here's a good political issue. I mean it
was rather, this was my view. I knew Margaret that if we
didn't oppose, and oppose fiercely the pilots, then we were
on notice. It was perfectly understandable from the rest of
the trade union movement if the pilots were allowed to get
by exercising a muscle, they said that's the end of the
game. We will say to everyone else whose got the muscle, ok
well you go and get 30%. 1 knew that was the end of the
economy. You just can't have a wages break-out like that.
So it wasn't just the pilots. I mean if you'd been in a
situation where you knew it was just the pilots, just the
pilots and no-one else, it wouldn't have any effect, people
might have said oh well we'll put up with all this
kerfuffle, I still think I would've opposed it. But the
critical issue was that we knew if the pilots were allowed
to break through for 30% it was game,-. set and match. The
economy was finished.
PEACOCK: Bob, just back on the airlines for one little bit
more and that is the compensation that you're paying to the
airlines. First up, how much have you currently paid the
airlines and if the strike goes on and on it could cost the
Government millions and millions while the travel industry
is falling apart.
PM: There are two things about that. I just don't know
what the precise figure is now Margaret. But these things
should be understood about it. It is not compensation for
their losses. So they're not being distinguished from the
tourist industry in that. It was simply that we had a
situation that if the airlines had stood down the other
non-pilot employees, as would have been the sort of thing
that would've normally happened, then two things would've
happened. One you just couldn't have built up the, you
couldn't have had the structure for building up the airlines
again and two there would've been a breakout elsewhere. So
there was a decision made that the airlines, not being able
. to stand down their employees without those consequences, we
would compensate there.. * In the tourism industry where they
-6-
didn't have jobs they were able to stand down their people.
That was something that the airlines couldn't do. But as
far as the tourism industry is concerned, they came to see
me. To their great credit they said we don't want
compensation. They understood the distinction. They said
quite specifically to me we don't want compensation but what
we do want is assistance for rebuilding the industry when
the dispute is finished. I said well you'll get that. So
what they are doing now is they're putting up proposals and
a number of sections of the tourist industry are going to be
doing this. They'll be putting up proposals to me for how
the Government can assist in the sort of advertising
campaign that will build the industry up. We will help them
in that way. Because what we've got to understand is that
the great attractions of Australia as a tourist destination,
both people from overseas and for people within Australia,
that they remain unchanged. The Barrier Reef's still there,
the Rock's still there. All our natural attractions are
still there. Once the airline industry is back and running
S fully, as it will be, then the tourism industry will build
S up. What we can do is to accelerate the knowledge and
understanding of people that it's all there and ready to go
again. PEACOCK: It could be too late for a few people who've gone
out of business. You mentioned the standdowns and the fact
that the airlines can't stand people down and I can
understand the logic in keeping the airlines going and
helping the travel industry. But there are a lot of people
who have lost jobs. When you mention that the travel
industry can stand down people there are thousands of people
out of jobs and even with the collapse of Christopher Skase
for instance
PM: The collapse of Christopher Skase has got nothing to do
with PEACOCK: He mentioned specifically the pilots' strike.
PM: Christopher Skase may mention it but look, no, there is
no economic analyst who will give you a moments thought on
that. Christopher Skase hasn't collapsed because of the
pilots' strike. Now in regard to people who have been stood
down it's true some people have suffered. But what I've
done there Margaret is to write to the banking industry and
to the finance industry, and I've got positive responses
from them. I've said where people, small enterprises are in
a situation where they need to be accommodated financially,
please do it. I've got a positive response from the banks
and finance industry on that. They are prepared to do that.
So that where an operator is really financially stretched as
a result of the pilots' dispute they can be accommodated.
The important thing is too that they should understand that
the industry is going to come back and is going to come back
-7-
stronger. Because what you've got to understand is that
with an airline industry which is going to be operating with
that significant improvement in productivity and efficiency,
that will mean as you look through time the actual fare
structure will be at a lower level than it otherwise
would've been.
PEACOCK: I'd love to see the fares go down for a change.
But we talked to Ben Sandilands, the travel writer for the
Bulletin the other day. He said there was no hope of
getting the travel industry back together and operating
before 1993.
PM: Well, I just don't agree with Sandilands on that.
PEACOCK: OK, well you'd beg to differ. On the economy,
main question. I said to one of the young people in this
office today ' if you were talking to the Prime Minister what
sort of question would you like to have the answer to'. She
came up with, a young 20 year old, interest rates.
PM: Yes, sure. Well, there always is a problem. I hate to
sound like a professor of economics when I answer this, so
I'll try and put it in language which
PEACOCK: Yes, don't talk like Mr Keating.
PM: Yes, sure. Well, I'm not talking about Paul, but I do
want to put it in terms that that lass that you're talking
about would understand. So, I'll try not to be technical.
Let me put it this way. Interest rates, very simply, are
the price of money. That's what interest rates are. Money
that you want to borrow, that's the price you have to pay to
borrow money. You borrow money to actually play some part
in the economic process, either to help run you're
running a business or you're buying a house or you want to
purchase some commodity. But in some way or another you are
playing some part in the economic process and you've got to
borrow money so you've got to pay a price for that money you
borrowed. Now, what we've got in Australia at the moment is
a situation where too many things are happening in the
economy. The level of activity, that is people who've been
building that many houses, they have been starting that many
areas of activity, doing that many things that we, with that
level of activity, were sucking in, bringing in from
overseas a level of imports that we're not able to pay for
by what we export. So that means you just can't you can
do that for some time because you borrow and you can do that
for a while but you can't go on doing that for ever and
ever. So, what we have to do is to get that level of
activity down somewhat so that the level of imports that's
coming in we can afford to pay for. So that what we've got
to make the price of money a little bit higher so that
people will marginally not make the decision to do that,
undertake that activity or buy that thing so that it will
bring things down. Now that's if we didn't do that, I
jnean, I -think I'm a pretty intelligent guy, pretty
intelligent politician., I'm not doing it for fun. I mean,
-8-
high interest rates hurt Prime Ministers. No doubt about
that, but the simple fact is, and you can explain to this
lass, if I just made the price of money cheaper and she was
able to go off and buy more things or buy another house or
' do something lik~ e that then, it might sound nice for a
moment, but before long she'd be much worse off because if
that happened the economy simply would collapse. We'd have
that many imports in that our exchange rate would be
destroyed, interest rates would go through the roof and the
whole economy would collapse.
PEACOCK: But can you see how we all, listening to you, the
banks put up the interest rates, the Government's talking to
us about how greedy we are buying all these things-
PM: It's not a question of greedy.
PEACOCK: But what I'm trying to say is that the people who
are paying the interest rates, who are just expected time
and time again to cope with one percent rises here and there
and it's been a fair percentage over the last year or two
PM: Yes, it has. It's gone up.
PEACOCK: to find the money and they're looking at a
bank that's supposed to be lending them at fair and
reasonable rates and a Government that's blaming them for
their consumption.
PM: No, it's not I'm not blaming them. There's no
suggestion on my part, Margaret, that I'm blaming anyone.
I'm simply saying that as we came into 1989 and out of last
year, judgements were made by the economists in Government
and in the banks in the private sector about what sort of
level of activity would be. None of-us really anticipated
that the level of activity would continue to be so high. So
we've had to, in that situation not say look, we blame
anyone that you're doing too much. We've simply, if we're
going to protect the economy we've got to make sure that
everyone's activity is dampened down a bit. That's why I've
had to say and it's not just interest rates, that's why in
the area of wages we're keeping the lid on wages. I've had
to say to the pilots you're not getting 30 percent. I've
had to say to members of Parliament, you're not getting the
sort of increases that you thought you were going to get.
I've stopped the -Parliamentary increases in levels they
thought they were going to get. We've had to say to
everyone, come on you've just got to dampen down a bit
because if we all don't do that then the economy will
collapse. I mean, no economy can simply keep saying you can
buy everything you want, have everything you want to do if
you're not producing it yourself and you're just getting it
from overseas and borrowing to pay for it. You've got to be
able essentially, essentially you've got to be able by what
you export to pay for what you've got to import. That's
essentially what you've got to do, you can't keep borrowing
. for ever. That means all of us, without blaming anyone,
without-blaming members of Parliament for wanting more or
blaming the lass that you're talking about for wanting to
buy a better house or something like that. It's simply that
all of us have got to reduce our expectations a little bit,
not a great deal, but a little bit. That means, for a
while, interest rates being up where they were. I can tell
that lass out there, as soon as the day comes, as soon as
the day comes where we can see the evidence that the level
of activity is levelled off and it's coming down a little
bit, then interest rates will come down.
PEACOCK: Well, you said that in February this year in
Perth, that interest rates would fall this year. They've
gone up and Paul Keating is saying they'll stay there until
next year.
PM4: Well, what people are trying to say that Paul said
that they wouldn't come down before June next year. He
didn't say that. What Paul has said is consistent with what
I've said. We've both said we will keep interest rates as
high as they need to be for as long as is necessary to get
that level of activity down a bit.
PEACOCK: So it could be well into next year. You're not
saying it won't be.
PM4: No, but what I'm saying is that the financial community
must know, both within this country and overseas that we are
not going to play fast and loose with interest rates. In
other words, they needn't, don't think that because there's
an election coming up I will be irresponsible by. interest
rates and bring them down before it's responsible to do so.
But if we see the signs that through the various economic
indicators that all of us, as a result of interest rates and
wage compression and so on, as a result of all those things,
the level of activity is coming down,-then interest rates
will come off.
PEACOCK: What about your, the Reserve Bank agreement with
the four major banks. What was the purpose, what is the
agreement, what have they promised in return?
PM4: They've agreed, in that situation where we let me go
back one step so that you can understand. We've got these
things called non callable deposits and when they were set
up there was a, sort of a, punitive rate on them. They only
got paid at about five percent on that as against what they
could get in the market Now, with the rise in market
rates, that penalty rate was widened. So what we did is to
restore the gap between what it was when we first put them
in and now-
PEACOCK: Why?
PM: Well, because there was no reason to impose a further
penalty on them. I mean, we thought that the housing sector
had really made enough contribution, there had been a
. flattening off in the housing sector and we didn't think.
there needed to be any-more there. So in return for having
that sort of gap restored to what it was before, the banks
said alright and they undertook not to increase mortgage
rates. PEACOCK: So they actually said that the mortgage rates in
those four major banks will stay at 17 percent?
PM: At the level that they were because they had been
compensated by the restoration of the differential that
existed at the beginning of the non callable deposit
a rrangement.
PEACOCK: For how long?
PM: Well, that will go, obviously go up to the end of this
year and I think we'll have a situation where, I believe,
that you've had the peaking of rates. what's worried people
obviously through this year is that mortgage rates have, as
you referred to before, they've gone up and up. I think we
can say now that they've peaked. I think that there is
S evidence coming through, it's not conclusive enough yet
right across about what's happening to the general level of
activity but I don't believe that we're looking at an
increase in rates now.
PEACOCK: And yet the State Bank here in Victoria, not part
of the system of course, the big four, has indicated that
they thought interest rates would go up.
PM: Well
PEACOCK: I mean, they're outside that agreement.
PM: They're not outside that agreement. I mean, why it
applied to these major banks they were the ones who had the
non callable deposits who had the penalty attached to them.
So it's logical why
PEACOCK: Just getting back to you saying that the interest
rates have peaked
PM: Well, let me say about that, I mean, I don't want to be
misquoted on that. what I've said is I think on the
evidence that's available, Margaret, that we are not seeing
now the level of economic activity continuing to grow. I
think the evidence is coming that it's flattening, but the
basic thing I want to say to, not just to ordinary people
and voters our there, but what I'm saying to the financial
markets too, is that we are not going to go sloppy on
interest rates. They are not going to come off a day
earlier than they should. I'm simply saying that on the
evidence I don't believe that we're looking at any need for
a further increase. I think, if anything, what will happen
is the level of activity will lessen, the general economic
activity and it's within that framework that you can see
interest rates coming off. But they are going to stay up
. there as long as is necessary until we make that judgement.
-11-
PEACOCK: So you've got the guarantee from the big four that
interest rates will stay about the same with your
compensation or your giving back that money till the end of
the year. But there's no control over the other banks or
the building societies?
PM: Well, that you've got the situation, as I said before,
they haven't got the same penalty as part of their base
and it is a reasonably competitive situation so I think
that, you know, generally speaking you can look at mortgage
rates being stabilised. But I say that within the framework
of the general answer. I've got to be cautious in that
statement, Margaret, because the markets look very closely
at what Prime Ministers and Treasurers say and it's very
important that they understand what I've said and I repeat
it, that we're not going to be sloppy about interest rates.
I mean, there'd obviously be a temptation for some people
not for us because we are pretty rigorous in the way we do
these things. But there must be some sort of temptation to
say ' oh well, wouldn't it be nice, you know, if we could
bring interest rates off'. People would like that. well,
I'd like it too, but I'm not going to do it before it's
responsible to do it.
PEACOCK: Well, I really appreciate you spending some time
with us today. I haven't covered half the things I think I
wanted to but I know time is pressing. I just wonder in a
political sense it's sometimes not easy to keep a track of
your words. I'm wondering if some of the statements you've
made, whether you regret things. Like the child poverty
statement, interest rates coming down statements, the
billion trees planting statement, perhaps the flying hours
that you had to do to become a pilot statement and putting
your credibility on the line over the pilots. I'm just
wondering if you ever just, sort of, -feel a smidge sorry
that you said something?
PM: Of course I feel, you know, there are some things that
I've said before I was Prime minister and since I've been
Prime Minister that I, in retrospect, I would have preferred
: tatlI dsihndsi feetyou din' ondet I mean, ouibfn'
ttalI dihsnasi do diffeenly MyneGodd ,. I meoanl, n ' foub
you didn't concede that you're saying you're perfect-and
I've never made that claim. For God's sake there's too much
evidence to refute it if I tried to.
PEACOCK: The child in poverty
PM: well, I'm glad you let's go to that. What I
regret about that is that the actual phrase in the speech,
the election speech, was not the phrase which was in the
fully developed document. In the attached document with the
speech what was said that there'll be no financial need, but
now we shortened that, there'll be no child in poverty.
Now that, I believe, was. unfortunate because what we were
saying is what, all that a Government can say. As I've
. said, no politician could say ' no child will live in
poverty'. I mean, I could provide $ 1000 to every low income
-12-
family and create a situation, no financial need, but that
still wouldn't mean that because a kid ran away from home or
because the mother or father just went and, you know, did
the wrong thing with it that there wouldn't be situations of
poverty. What I was saying and what was spelt out in the
full attached document that we would make decisions,
Margaret, about making financial assistance available which
would mean there would be no financial need for any child to
live in poverty. Could I just
PEACOCK: I've seen both of those statements and I realise
that you said no need for a child to live in poverty-
PM: No financial need.
PEACOCK: And also no child will be living in poverty-
PM: Yes. That shorthand phrase in the speech I consider,
in retrospect, was unfortunate. I mean, we should have
spelt out in the detail of what was all that a Government
could do. That is, look after the financial side of it.
Now I'd Just like, if I could, refer to, you know, the
acknowledgement, the acknowledgement by the welfare
industry that I've kept the promise that I made. I mean,
without being exhaustive about it, just let me go to what's
been said on that.
PEACOCK: That doesn't really
PM: Well,
PEACOCK: I mean, I'm just gratified to hear that you regret
that shorthand statement because, of course it was a very
famous one. We've got to let you go in a minute Prime
Minister. I just want to ask you
PM: Just let me quote two of them. This is from ACOSS
PEACOCK: Yes, I know ACOSS.
O PM: ' The Prime Minister is correct to say that he has
achieved the financial benchmarks for children and this is a
major achievement'. I mean they are saying that and I think
just the last word from Bishop Peter Hollingsworth where he
refers to what we've done the achievements of what we
promised and he said ' these reforms are too important to be
caught in the crossfire of political conflict. The
Opposition ought to openly acknowledge the merit of such
reforms and move towards a more bipartisan stance on welfare
policies for children'. I mean, we are now, Margaret,
paying out over $ 2 billion a year and we've indexed these
things. I mean, this is the absolute enormous dimension of
our achievement, recognised as having done something that's
been done nowhere else, matched the benchmarks that we set
so that there is no financial need for a child to live in
-13-
poverty. We've met that target ahead of time. what
Hollingsworth is saying, this is enormous this achievement
and he's saying to the Opposition ' for God's sake don't be
so damned petty, acknowledge the magnificence of this
achievement and get into a bipartisan situation on it'.
PEACOCK: Election? When can we expect that?
PM: Well, if you look back over all my statements it's
quite clear that I've thought that 1990 is the most likely
time and I think that's still the case.
PEACOCK: Another couple of terms for Bob Hawke?
PM: Certainly
PEACOCK: ( inaudible)
PM: busy time up in Malaysia and back here, but I
still love it. I'll lead the Party into the next election.
I believe that we'll win the next election, Margaret, and
I'll lead the Government through that full term and then,
you know, we can look at it after that.
PEACOCK: Bob, lovely to spend time with you and I know that
time is very precious for a Prime Minister and I appreciate
it all the more for that reason. Thank you.
PM: Thank you Margaret. It's always a pleasure to talk to
you, thank you very much.
ends