PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF DOORSTOP, EASTFIELD PHARMACY, THEI MALL,
SOUTH CROYDON, 9 NOVEMBER 1989
X4 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: Well what we've done is to put a package and I've
written a letter to Jim Matthews, the National President.
ThdL framework must stand and the implications of
it. Now, if the Pharmacy Guild will accept that, come
in and talk with us, well I've said that provided that
basic of the budgetar-y implications are maintained,
sure, we can talk. And if they come in we would want
to see the pharmacists liave two members on the Trust which
would administer the new provisions which are regarded
as important, by pharmacists, professional allowance and
may I say Just, having just had the opportunity of
boing in here and having spelt out to me the sort of
professional services that are provided by pharmacists
I'm all the more reinforced In the necessity for this
professional allowance concept. So Lhey would have two
people on the Trust helping to administer that, they'd
have a majority on that. I've also given the undertaking
that at the first opportunity that arises there would
be a person with experience in retail pharmacy go on the
Pharmacy Remuneration Tribunal. So those things
can be done aid we can talk about these issues within
O that basic framework.
JOURNALIST: Do you consider $ 60 million to be enough
or will there be more-
PM: $ 60 million, $ 60 million is on top of what the Tribunal
decided and think that that provides a very substantial
advance and we've got to operate within that framework
I think the pharmacists understand. We haven't got
a bottomless pit. I mean, we Just can't everything
you want and they I think they do recognise that,
you know, can't yo on with d 25 percent markup concept
especially in regard to the high cost drugs. But really,
the thing to do would be, as the pilots, and say
alright, we regard that framework as sound come in
und vlt's talk about it.
-2-
JOURNALIST: Kr Hawke, evidence was given in court today
that You and Sir Peter Abeles struck a deal about how
to handle the Pilots' dispute before the pilots took industrial
action. Is that true?
PM: No, of course not and the matter is subjudicy at
any rate,. But by now You ought to have realised that
the untruths that have been told in this on the part of
the pilots, they're Just mountainous. I mean, they seem
to forget that it was in February of-this year that they
put out, in written form, a publication telling their
members to prepare for a long battle. They prepared for
it in February.
JOURNALIST: Did you discuss that with Sir Peter before
the pilots took industrial action?
PM: Discuss what, I mean
JOURNALIST: Did you discuss the dispute with Sir Peter
before the pilots took industrial action?
PM: There was no dispute before there was industrial
action. At any rate undex-sLdnd this matter is
JOURNALIST: chemists your best and last offer?
PM: I've answered that question.
JOURNALIST; Mr Ilawke, the next one and the big one, when
is the election?
PM: Not to be announced here. Wouldn't you like that
wouldn't you love that too? But I think it's likely
to be in 1990 sometime.
JOURNALIST: January 1990?
JOURNALIST: Mr Peacock
PM; Well Mr Peacock is all over the place in this matter
Isn't lie. I mean; after all, they created the Tribunal,
not us. I've said in terms of pharmacists' representation
thaL when the opportunity arises, which I think is
betore very long, we will see that there is pharmacists'
representation on Lhe Tribunal.
JOURNALIST: Andrew Peacock is actually sending letters
to individual pharmacists Mr Hawke, urging them not to
back the Government's package and saying that they'd do
a lot better under the Liberal Party.
-3-
PM:, I Just ask you go and have a look at the graph of
pharmacists' income under the last Liberal Government
of which Peacock was part. Have a look at what happened
to their income under them, have a look at what's happened
to their income under us. I tell you now, just give you
guarantee I wish I'd been as certain as you
know, knowing the winner of the Melbourne Cup under
the Libs pharmacists' income went down, under us it's
gone up. Just do the two graphs. So if the pharmacists
believe the Liberals on what would happen to their income
under them, they'd believe anything and I don't think
they're that silly.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: You're quite right 12 percent under us over
the next two years
JOURNALIST: Are you concerned against you whenever
the election is?
PM: I'd rather thay weren't making those threats, but
I think we can work these things out.
ends