~ IILZ3
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH IAN McMINN, RADIO 3AW, TUESDAY
FEBRUARY, 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
McMINN: Good afternoon, Prime Minister.
PM: Good afternoon, Ian.
McMINN: Now you've been given the kiss of death, you know
that? PM: No I don't know that, what's that?.
McMINN: Well, you have. Malcolm Mackerras has done a Lou
Richards on you. You haven't picked it up?
PM: Well, I've seen reference in the Press in the last few
weeks that he said we'd win.
McMINN: He's given you a 60 percent chance of winning.
PM: Yes.
McMINN: That is very bad news.
PM: I don't think so. I mean, he's looking at the evidence
and I want your listeners to know I'm not cocky or
complacent, but on the evidence that we have, I think we
will win.
McMINN: The evidence. What evidence have you got?
PM: Well, the published polls and the, there's one out
today, another one tomorrow which confirms that we should
win, but I'm not taking, sort of, ultimate comfort in that
because I believe the Australian electorate expects me to
fight this election hard right up until the last day and I'm
going to on the basis that I don't assume anything about the
result. But I think in the end, Ian, the thing that's going
to be important is that people are going to say, well which
side has got the leadership and the team. Now on my side,
my leadership is unquestioned and it's strong. On the other
side there is just total disunity and historically
Australian politics have shown this truth, that the people
say, look, and they've said it to the Labor Party over the
years, as you know, and I think said it rightly, they say to
2
parties if you can't govern yourself, we're not going to let
you govern the country.
McMINN: In 1983 1 travelled around the country with you. I
was then working for Network
PM: You missed the plane once, mate.
McMINN: I did, no that was actually in 1984 I missed the
plane. We'll get into that at another time that's when I
was working at Macquarie actually.
PM: That's right.
McMINN: Yes. Anyway, the images, the television images at
the time and you were campaigning on reconciling the country
and bringing it together, the television images at the time
were very favourable to you and conversely for Malcolm
Fraser, the images were of conflict. Now everywhere you're
going right now, you're attracting images of conflict even
to the point yesterday where you walked of f the podium, you
did your block and Andrew Peacock says you're losing your
cool. PM: Yes, I've noticed Andrew Peacock has said that and, as
I said earlier today, I just hope the Leader of the
Opposition keeps on believing that. Let me go back to ' 83
in a minute and pick up yesterday first. The facts were, as
people have conceded, that I treated as a joke what happened
at the Opera House. I went up there to talk and deliver my
speech and there wasn't a square centimetre on the podium.
They'd occupied the podium and I said, come on I want some
room to put my notes and we had a bit of a laugh about that
and the whole audience were laughing with us on it, so there
was no problem there. And then, of course, later on in the
day I simply had a situation where I was asked to launch a
magazine in an enclave in Parliament House and this zealot
just took over and I just couldn't share that very small
room with him and the people couldn't hear
McMINN: But that was on the same day, that was on the 7.30
Report, it got a wide coverage, but
PM: it got coverage, but..
McMINN: But the, but the evening news every night's showing
you storming your way through pilots or whoever might
PM: Not storming, not storming my way through. I mean,
I've got to make my way through as I did here, coming into
the studio. There's a group of them out there carrying on,
making a noise. Well, I just can't sit down and wait for
them to go away, I've got to walk through them I'm not
storming through. But let's go back to the past with ' 83.
In ' 83 you had widespread disillusionment with the
Government. You had a situation there, within that last 12
months before that election, another quarter of a million
people being thrown on to the unemployment scrapheap and
you'd had a situation of widespread industrial
confrontationism. Now I said let's change that and we have.
There's been a 60 percent reduction in industrial
disputation under my Government compared with that period.
Now what we have now, the central core of the dispute, are
these pilots and just let me, you know, as it's pilots, just
let me remind you, let me show you that. Deadline ' 89.
Exactly 12 months old and that was issue number one put out
by the Australian Federation of Airline Pilots in February
' 89. And what they were saying, they were talking about
their prolonged industrial action, they were going to take
on their employers, the Government the ACTU and the
Industrial Commission and
McMINN: What I'm talking about
PM: And, and they've been beaten and in a situation where
the community regards them as being unacceptable. They
tried to pull on the whole community to get a 30 percent
wage increase.
McMINN: But I'm talking about the image on television every
night and
PM: OK, but
McMINN: But the image on television every night. I mean,
you'd, put it this way, you'd prefer to be able to walk
around the place without being accosted by people and, and
PM: No, no
McMINN: And going on the evening bulletin every night.
PM: No, not right. I mean, this is a democracy and if
people want to protest, however wrongly, I mean, including
pilots who wanted to, to rape the Australian community and
said they did. And because I had the strength to stand up
to them on behalf of the Australian community and not let
them destroy the economy, they are still crooked on me. OK,
but I'll defend their right, I'll defend their right to
protest. I mean, I think they're silly in doing it, but
they have every right to do it.
McMINN: And you don't think that's going to detract from
your chances?
PM: No, on the contrary. I mean, it's quite clear from
every poll the Australian people just regard the pilots'
federation as having been an abomination in what they did
and what is involved in this election is a question of
strength of leadership. I was prepared, at a lot of
obviously personal discomfort and so on as you are talking
about now, I was prepared to show the strength of
leadership. I said don't do it, now for God's sake don't do
it, it's silly what you are going to do, but if you're going
to take on the whole Australian community and try and get a
percent wage increase, which increase is on top of your
average $ 80,000 a year that you're getting for 32 hours a
week, I said if you think you can do that to the Australian
community and destroy the community, you've got me to stand
up to on behalf of the Australian community. My political
opponent would have caved into them, said yes, you can
have it. Now all I'm saying is the fact that they are
making a noise, OK that's one thing, but the real decision
that the people of Australia have got to make is do they
prefer Bob Hawke, who had the courage to stand up to the
pilots and say firstly, don't do it, it's wrong, work in the
system. When they wouldn't, I said I'm defending the
Australian community. They make the choice between that
strength of leadership or my opponent who would have said,
yes you can have your 30 percent.
McMINN: Why, if we can change the subject
PM: Sure.
McMINN: Why is the ALP doing so badly in Victoria? Now
every day I sit here and every day I get a lot of calls.
You'd agree that there's a lot of seats that are hanging in
the balance here. Why in Victoria if I'm told equally that
it isn't, doesn't appear to be so bad in the other parts of
the country?
PM: Well, let's be quite frank about it. I mean, you've
never seen me dodge an issue, a question I won't now.
Quite clearly there's some dissatisfaction in this State
with the State Government and, to his credit, John Cain has
acknowledged that. He's said the problems in Victoria are
the responsibility of the State Government and I thank him
for being quite straightforward and unequivocal about that.
But my point is this, as I said in Western Australia, Ian,
where there was also dissatisfaction with the Western
Australian State Government, I said this do people really
think that the electors of Victoria are dumb, that they are
people who act against their self interest? In other words,
are they going to give themselves, as Mr and Miss Victoria,
going to kick themselves in the backside to punish John Cain
and the State Government? What this election is about, for
instance McMINN: Well, in the West, by the way, Dowding resigned.
PM: I know, but I'm still making the point that what was
being said to us in Western Australia, the same thing that's
being said here, let's, if you want, concentrate here. If,
and I'll come back to the comparison between the two, but is
the ordinary Victorian elector if dissatisfied with some of
the things that the State Government has done, going to say
McMINN: Like a blow-out in the State Bank $ 1300 million
or whatever?
PM: OK. Yes, but are they can I just ask you a question
are they going to say because they're dissatisfied with
that, that we will hurt ourselves by destroying Medicare
because that's what's an issue here, are you going to keep
Medicare or are you going to have the Opposition mishmash
there? Are we going to punish ourselves in regard to
education? Are we going to punish ourselves in regard to
wages? All these federal issues because we're unhappy with
something that the State Government's done. Now my belief
in regard to the electors of Victoria is they're not going
to give themselves a kick in the backside to punish John
Cain. I just don't believe that will be the case.
McMINN: To punish John Cain?
PM: To punish John Cain. Their concern is with certain
things about the Victorian Government.
McMINN: Well
PM: The Victorian Government is not up for election on 24
March, the Federal Government is and it's a choice between
Bob Hawke and Andrew Peacock on 24 March. It's a choice
between keeping Medicare or having it abolished. Now those
are the issues. Now I don't believe that essentially the
Victorian people are going to have different judgements
about those things which are up for grabs on 24 March.
McMINN: In the West, there was, you made no secret of the
fact that you supported Carmen Lawrence and equally you
weren't putting too many impediments in the way of Peter
Dowding resigning. A simple question, should Rob Jolly, for
the benefit of the Labor Party, resign?
PM: No, I don't think so and that's certainly a matter in
Victoria, but I, I've not said that. I notice there was a
beatup
McMINN: Would you like him to?
PM: No. There was a story on the front page of today's Age
which was totally unfounded. The author had not contacted
myself or Bob Hogg. We'd put, neither myself or Hogg
had put any pressure on Cain to that effect.
McMINN: Well, you see, what I'm getting at is that here
people are saying constantly a statement, $ 1300 million this
Thursday in regard to the State Bank, the VEDC revelations,
they feel that a lot of them and a lot of Labor Party people
that have spoken to me on this station
PM: Yes.
McMINN: have said that they feel that their vote was
cheated in the State Government at the last election because
they feel that somehow or other the election was called
before the figures came out. Now what I'm getting at is
that should Jolly do the right thing in terms of the Labor
Party and say OK, like Peter Dowding did and just say, OK
let's clear the air, let's get that out of the way?
PM: Well, as I said in Western Australia, and let me make
it quite clear, when I was asked the question over there I
said this is a matter for the State people. Here, what they
do is a matter for them. I don't intervene. I simply say
this, as I said earlier today Ian, I know Rob Jolly going
back a long way because he was a research officer at the
ACTU and all of my knowledge of Rob Jolly is one of both
high competence and complete integrity and this matter will
be dealt with during this week and I believe, as I
understand it, it will be shown that in respect of the Bank,
the board had total independence and there was no
ministerial responsibility for decisions. Now, in those
circumstances, one is hard, is hard to see how Mr Jolly's
head should be on the block. But having said that, these
are matters for Victoria.
McMINN: And so you're not ruling out the fact that he
resign?
PM: No, look, it's not a ruling out or ruling in. I'm
saying
McMINN: You're saying you've got no control over
PM: I'm saying what I know about Mr Jolly, his competence
and his integrity, that's the first thing I'm saying. And
the second thing I'm saying that as far as I know, and this
is something which will come out during the week, but as far
as I know, there was no ministerial lines of responsibility
in this matter. By legislation and by the way the
administration was set up the board of the Bank and the
executive of the Bank was entirely independent of the
minister. Now, that's as I know it. Now in those
circumstances it's hard to establish the case.
McMINN: People might want a sacrificial lamb, like Dowding
was? PM: Well, I'm not so sure that Mr Dowding regarded himself
as a sacrificial lamb. I think Mr Dowding in his statements
accepted that he had a responsibility, that there was a
difference there. He was involved in decisions. I mean,
there is no analogy at all. He said, I was involved in
decisions, I look back on them, those decisions that I was
involved in, that I had responsibility for, they were wrong
decisions. I therefore resign. But here in this case, as I
think will come out, there is no ministerial responsibility
or involvement in the decisions.
MCMINN: Now moving onto industrial relations where there is
clearly an alternative between yourself and the Opposition.
I see headlines about the Coalition talking about cutting
labour costs and there was a rather confused press
conference, if I may say, yesterday in Canberra between Dr
Hewson and Dr Stone John Stone, he's not a Dr is he? I
don't think so, yet.
PM: I don't think he's a Dr, no.
MCMINN: Anyway, before we get to that I'd like to play just
a very small snippet of an interview I did with Bill Kelty
yesterday. I asked the ACTU Secretary what would happen if
the Coalition tried to reduce the role of the IRC and move
quickly to enterprise-based bargaining.
EXCERPT OF KELTY: If that is the way it is going to operate
then it's going to be the survival of the fittest and the
fastest. We'd better be out there quick and we had better
be fit, and we had better be fast and we had better do
whatever we can in that market society to get whatever we
can.
MCMINN: Now you might have missed the first couple of words
there. Well he's basically saying if that's what's going to
happen they're going to go for it. Now is that a
responsible position?
PM: But it's not one doesn't have to be hypothetical. I
mean we've had the decade of the ' 80s. At the beginning of
the ' 80s the conservatives had exactly the same policy then,
exactly the same policy as they want to put back now. So
we're entitled to look back and say well what happened? We
pleaded for them not to do it. But they said no, that they
were going to get rid of the centralised wage fixing system
and let it be hell for leather. Now that was their policy.
What happened? You had a wages blowout and the economy
collapsed into the worst recession for 50 years. Now what
Kelty is saying, he's pleading with them to have sense. He
said don't let it be a free for all, don't create that
system. But he said if you do, if you're saying that's the
way it should be, ok, we'll go and do it. But it's no good.
He doesn't want that.
MCMINN: But I mean don't you think a lot of people might
think that that's a threat to their right to throw out a
government, which many people perceive as not having sorted
out the matters for them?
PM: Well. Let me put it this way. If Bill Kelty had just
stood up and said ' look, I don't like Andrew Peacock and the
Liberals and the National Party. I don't like ' em. I'm
telling you now, I'll make life difficult for them.' I
wouldn't support that proposition and I would publicly
reprimand him. But Bill Kelty has been totally responsible.
He's been confronted with a situation and why do you think
the business community is so worried about it they're
confronted with a situation where these people haven't
learnt. They haven't learnt in Medicare. They've had seven
years in Opposition and what do they get up at the end and
say? Sorry, you know what our record was, it was terrible.
And it's no better now. Because after seven years we
haven't got a policy. They are exactly the same in regards
to industrial relations. After seven years they are
promising a return to exactly the position which destroyed
this country at the beginning of the ' 80s, which brought the
worst recession in 50 years, which brought double digit
inflation and double digit unemployment.
MCMINN: ( inaudible)
PM: And so what Bill Kelty is saying, he's saying if that's
what you want, if you want it to be a situation of the
strong using their strength out there in a bargaining
position, if that's what you want, and he said it's the
worst thing you can do, but if that's your policy ok, we'll
have to go and exercise our strengths in the market.
MCMINN: So a threat to the electorate about industrial
disruption? PM: No, a promise of industrial disruption from the
conservatives who haven't got the good sense to learn from
their mistakes at the beginning of the
MCMINN: So if you vote for the conservatives, I mean,
you're chucking it away. The point I'm getting at
PM: Well let me say
MCMINN: The point I'm getting at is that people feel
bludgeoned by the fact that a Kelty would get on and say
PM: No, no. Not bludgeoned by that. What the people are
concerned about, including a poll that came out today of the
business community, have said this is an AAP poll of the
business community. They've said they see a swing to the
Liberals could see the $ A at money markets sold off. They
are saying that the Labor Government deserves to win. They
are saying that they have lost confidence in the Opposition
and they are saying there's the mirror image. You've got
business and the unions saying look we don't want a descent
into what you foisted upon us before, conservatives. You
ruined the country before they said by opening up this free
bargaining situation. Both sides are saying for God's sake,
particularly for Australia's sake, don't let's have it
again.
MCMINN: They're also saying that the respondents are
disillusioned with both parties, saying neither deserves to
win. PM: No, a minority. The majority, and as you know, you've
read it, the majority are saying Labor deserves to win.
MCMINN: Interest rates. The key issue in the campaign it
would appear at this stage.
PM: Yes.
MCMINN: You're talking about interest rates dropping.
Andrew Peacock's talking about interest rates dropping. The
question is to, and I'd say a pretty cynical electorate, why
should they believe either of you?
PM: Well if they don't want to believe me they should
but if they don't want to believe me I suggest it's much
more significant that they believe the banking community.
Because the banking community has said unequivocally that
interest rates are going to fall further. That is prime
rates and the cash rates and the bill rates, but importantly
that mortgage rates are going to fall. They have said that.
MCMINN: Can you quantify that?
PM: No I can't. What I do when I say I, that is the
Government. That's essentially in this economic area myself
and Paul Keating. What we've done is to take the tough
decisions. I've had the guts to make the tough decisions
last year and take all the flak to have tight monetary
policy. Which we had to have. I mean let me say again to
your listeners now, the last thing in the world I wanted to
do was to hurt them or hurt myself by having high interest
rates. We had to do it because I haven't burdened you
with a lot of statistics and I'm not going to do it again.
But in the last year very simple statistics. Our
consumption increased by eight per cent, our production by
four per cent. Just that gap was made up by sucking in
imports. We couldn't go on doing that. So I've had to have
interest rates high to lower demand. Now what the banking
sector is saying is right, those policies are correct, we
understand them, they are working. We have already started
the reduction of prime rates. The cash rates and the bill
rates are down substantially. And they are saying they'll
come down further. And they are saying that mortgage rates
will come down.
MCMINN: And stay down?
PM: I believe so because we have got, as distinct from the
Opposition, we've got tight fiscal policy and tight wages
policy. Without again I don't want to burden your
listeners with technical jargon, but when I say tight fiscal
policy that means we ' ye conducted our own public business in
a way that's never been done before. For the first time,
under my Government, we've got surpluses. We've gone into
surplus. And we have had four successive years of real
reductions in our outlays. So fiscal policy is tighter than
it's ever been before. Wages policy tight with tight
monetary policy. That means now that we can look to
confidence, and the banking industry is looking with
confidence to rates coming down and staying down.
MCMINN: At that point Prime Minister we'll take a break and
go into an open line after the break.
MCMINN: First call to Ada.
CALLER: I'm a bit shaky.
PM: No need to be shaky Ada.
CALLER: Mr Hawke, look I've always voted for you, I always
but I think this time I'm not going to.
PM: We always get those in the election Ada. You know the
Liberal Party always rings up.
CALLER: Let me first talk to you.
PM: Sure.
CALLER: I am the mother of a young pilot, a young
pilot. It cost me a lot of money to study. Look, now he
will have to go overseas looking for a job. I came to this
country 35 years ago. I worked hard. My husband worked
hard for my son to study and now what' s he doing with
trying and you my family. I don't know what you're
going to do about this, young people. They're not people
earning $ 80,000.
PM: Ok Ada. Well thank you
CALLER: They're not people earning $ 80,000. They're young
pilots, young
MCMINN: Ada, I don't want to cut you off because it's rude,
but nevertheless we've got a lot of calls. So I think the
point's made.
PM: Ada. Thank you for your call. Let me say when I refer
to $ 80,000 that is the average figure which the Pilots
Federation have not questioned. That was the average
figure. A lot of people there, pilots, were earning very
very much more than that. Certainly there were some that
were earning less. The average was $ 80,000 a year for an
average of 32 hours at the stick a month. Now, exactly a
year ago Ada your son' s union, the Federation of Air Pilots,
made a decision. Not me. They made a decision that they
were different from every other union in the country which
had decided to abide by the guidelines. They said damn
that, it's alright for everyone else. We are going for a
increase. And they declared in February, exactly a year
ago, that they would take on 1) their employers, 2) the
trade union movement, 3) the Government, and 4) the
Industrial Relations Commission. That was their decision
that they would take us all on to get a 30% increase. I
pleaded Ada with them. I said don't do that. I said stay
in the system, put your case, there's a case for an
increase. Do it like every other union of workers and argue
your case. They said no, we're going to take everyone on
and we don't mind how long we stay up. Just let me read to
you Ada from what your son's union put out, Deadline ' 89,
Issue No 1. They said get ready for a non-income period.
Establish other employment opportunities. They said start a
lawn mowing business. These were their words. Go and get
another job because we're going to have a long fight perhaps
but we'll win it. Now Ada, I could've, like the Leader of
the Opposition, I could've laid down and said ok we'll cop
it. But I wasn't prepared to Ada for a very simple reason,
that if I had allowed the pilots to win that 30% increase
then the whole system broke down. You would've had a wages
explosion and the economy wrecked. Ada, there's no-one
who's sorrier than I am that there's been unhappiness for
your son and for other pilots. I pleaded with them to do
what every other union of workers has to do. They decided
no, that they were going to take on everyone. Now in life
Ada, I've seen it and so have you, you see people decide
that they're going to pick a fight, take someone else on and
they get beaten. They don't like it. I don't like it. But
it was of their making and I had a responsibility to protect
the Australian community. Now I'm proud that I had the guts
to stand up when it was necessary, as distinct from others
who would've laid down and allowed the Australian economy to
be wrecked.
MCMINN: Next call to Gay. Good afternoon Gay.
CALLER: Good afternoon Mr Hawke.
PM: Good afternoon Gay.
CALLER: In today's Sun there was an article that Labor is
going to give $ 160 million to help poorer private schools.
It said that Mr Dawkins had planned to release the schools
policy today but apparently it was leaked to the media and
it's going to be lodged on Thursday. What I'm on about is I
have two children currently attending Bacchus Marsh College
and as late as yesterday we had a letter from Mr O'Keefe,
the sitting member for Burke, to say that we had been
rejected for Government funding. Apparently it's going
our school is a non-demoninational school and apparently
they're going to give it to the Church of England, the
Anglicans, to build a school They haven't got a peg in
the ground. I'm not having a go at the Anglicans, I'm
married to one. What I'm on about is they haven't got a peg
in the ground. We've got a hundred children attending the
school. We're not millionaires by any means. My husband's
a truck driver. We're working class We've done this
with no fuss. We've had working bees, we've done
everything, we've worked our butts off. Why?
McMINN: Gay
GAY: Why?
PM: Thank you for your question. Let me be quite direct
about it. In the period that we've been in office there has
been an historically unprecedented increase in funding in
real terms to both the Government and the private sector. A
fact which is acknowledged by every commentator. Now in the
allocation of funds, Gay, as between schools, there has got
to be certain criteria that are laid down so that you get
priorities. Now as a Prime Minister I don't sit down and
say, ' well if Gay rings me up, yes alright I'll give her
money', and I think you'd appreciate this Gay, there's got
to be a set of objective criteria so that judgements are
made between conflicting demands. No government can satisfy
every demand from every group in the community who wants
more money. So you've got to have an objective set of
criteria. All I can say, Gay, is that they have been
followed and I think you will see when the details of our
education policies are released and you referred to that
that you'll see a continuation under this Government of what
has never been done before. The public sector and the
private sector have publicly acknowledged the fact that they
have been given greater increases in funding and greater
security into the future of funding than under any previous
government. McMINN: Next call to Duncan. Good afternoon Duncan.
DUNCAN: Hello, Mr Hawke.
PM: G'day Duncan.
DUNCAN: I'd just like to congratulate you on being a strong
leader over the last couple of years and just to say to the
listeners out there that we need strong leadership in this
country and, you know, you have represented us and been
strong as far as the and in the local view. I'd just
say are you planning on having this televised debate with
Andrew Peacock because I think it would show the people
really what leadership's all about?
PM: Well Duncan, thank you for you kind comments. Saying
in regard to the pilots dispute and other things, in the end
leadership is about being prepared to take decisions that
you might get a kick in the bum about, if provided you are
convinced that you've got to do it in the interests of the
country and I hope I've done that, I've tried my best any
rate. In regard to the debate, yes, the debate is on next
Sunday night. I believe confidence that I can equip
myself well
McMINN: If I can interrupt, why wasn't the debate held at
the end of the campaign, Prime Minister? Why was it at the
start of the campaign?
PM: I don't know. There was discussions between my I
mean I have got, let me say this, I've got a supreme
indifference to the debate. I had no involvement in the
discussions, I left that to my people, they discussed it
with, I think, Mr Eggleton. I mean, I am supremely
indifferent to the intrinsic merit of the debate. I mean, I
simply make the point, and again it goes to the intelligence
of the Australian people. I say this on the basis I think I
can win the debate, but just put that to one side. Andrew
Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, and I have been in
public life for approximately the same period of time
about 30 years. I've been in public life, I came to the
ACTU here in Melbourne in 1958. I became a public figure in
' 59, conducting the basic wage case. So I've been a public
figure for 30 years. Andrew Peacock has for a similar sort
of period. Now I believe this is why I say it I regard
the debate as, you know, a bit of flim-flam in a sense. I
agreed to it because if I hadn't Mr Peacock would've been
running around the country saying Hawke won't debate me-
McMINN: Well he you the last time, didn't he?
PM: I don't believe he did, and that's a judgement that
people want to make if they want to. I mean, I don't
believe he did. But any rate I'm simply saying we've been
in public life for 30 years and I think people are in a
position where they can and will make a judgement as between
Bob Hawke and Andrew Peacock on the basis of 30 years in
public life and I don't think one night is going to make
much difference. That's why I regard this supreme
indifference. I will try my best, I'll try my best. I
believe I'll equip myself well. I think the Australian
people are pretty sensible. They are going to look at Bob
Hawke, Andrew Peacock. We've been around for 30 years. You
can judge us.
McMINN: We await this on Sunday night. Next call to Ruby.
RUBY: Good day Mr Hawke.
PM: G'day Ruby.
RUBY: Congratulations for what you've done.
PM: Thank you.
RUBY: Over the last seven years. Is it a criminal
offence to pay off the coppers?
PM: Is it a criminal offence to what?
RUBY: Pay off the coppers.
PM: Well I think it would be, if anyone pays of f coppers.
I mean, it would be criminal offence
RUBY: But this is a thing I want answered and I want it
answered properly. In 1984 1 heard Derryn Hinch say that
his best friend paid off the coppers and he wasn't too
pleased about it. But no way can I get him to answer that.
I've put it through to time and time again.
McMINN: Look I'm sorry, we're just going to have to move on
because it's getting into one of those horrible areas where
the whole station might be taking a call. I'm sorry Ruby
about this. Bill, good afternoon.
BILL: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Mr Hawke, I'll
come straight to the point. I came to this wonderful
country about 35 years ago from the UK and I have a small
business which depends heavily on interstate transport. Now
my question is this. Now that you've established the
precedent of military intervention during the airline pilots
strike
14
PM: That's a bit rough, Bill.
BILL: This is how it can be viewed, I believe. But could I
ask you then, now that a precedent has been set, how long
will it be before you take action to remove the border
blockades which threaten to bring businesses like mine to a
standstill? PM: Ok, Bill. You've come to the point, let me come
straight to the point. Firstly, there is no direct
comparison between the dispute you're referring to and the
pilots dispute. By definition, from day one the pilots
dispute was a national dispute which involved a conflict
under a federal award where the Government therefore, my
federal Government, was directly involved from day one.
Here this dispute, Bill, as I hope you'll appreciate, is a
complaint that the trucking industry has against the
Government of NSW. Let me say this Bill, that I agree not
with the tactics of the truckies but I agree with what their
concern is. Their concern is a very simple one and Bill,
coming from a lovely country where you haven't got all this
different, you know, one State system and things being
different on one side of the border to the other, you'd
probably understand it. What the truckies are saying is for
good sake, why can't we have a national system of road
standards and regulations. In December last year and this
will show you how I've been involved and how I've got the
answer I made available to the States at the end of last
year in December, $ 120M which would help them meet some of
the black spots in the roads, where the most dangerous ones
where, on condition that they agreed to national standards.
So I've given, as I said in response to an observation by Mr
Greiner, I said look I've given you the key to the answer to
this dispute. In December of last year agree with me and
the other States and we can have national standards, which
is what the truckies want. I think they're right in wanting
national standards. I mean, it is silly to have a
situation. But let me give you the most stunning example.
Under the different standards that exist now, you can have a
position that a driver can be regarded as drunk and unfit to
be driving a vehicle in one State but just across the border
he's a law abiding motorist. Now what the truckies want is
national standards. I think they're right. I don't like
their tactics but their objective is right.
McMINN: We've run out of time. Just one quick one from me.
I was reading Paul Kelly on Saturday last Saturday and
he wrote the following, Paul, a very astute man as you know.
Does your research show a desire to change Government but a
lack of faith in the alternative. In other words, if you
get in is it because the other mob lost rather than you win?
PM: I think it'll be a combination of facts as I think
there will be a vote for us because of the fact. For
instance, just take some fundamentals. In education, that
as a result of my policies instead of it being one in three
of Australian kids staying on in education, it's now two in
three. I believe, secondly, that they'll vote for us
positively because we've got Medicare, so that everyone,
every single member of every Australian family is covered.
They'll vote for that positively. I concede that one of the
reasons why I believe we'll also be elected is because they
have no confidence in the alternative. Just take health. I
mean, it is remarkable, isn't it, 7 years in opposition and
they have stand up in front of the Australian people and say
sorry we got it all wrong, we have deliberately misled you
since June of last year when our words were our policies are
finalised, fully drafted, fully costed. They've been
telling the Australian people that for over 6 months and
they get up and say actually we've been telling you fibs.
Now the Australian electorate can't have faith in people who
haven't done their work, but more importantly who are
fundamentally divided and disunited. The don't trust their
own people, they don't like and trust their Leader, they are
deeply divided, they hate one another. The Australian
people, as I said before, have said consistently and will
say again, if you can't govern yourselves, we're not going
to let you govern us.
McMINN: On that note, we shall see. First week of a
campaign and having done three of them, not as many as you
or Mr Peacock, I might add, but having done three of them
the campaign can change. We'd didn't get through the calls
and we didn't get through all the topics I'd like to address
but maybe I'll put in a request during the normal channels
but I'd like to see you back on the program in the last week
of the campaign.
PM: Well, if it can be managed I'd love to. Thank you to
you and your listeners.
ends