PM Transcripts

Transcripts from the Prime Ministers of Australia

Transcript 7769

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH ALAN JONES, RADIO 2UE, 9 OCTOBER 1989

Photo of Hawke, Robert

Hawke, Robert

Period of Service: 11/03/1983 to 20/12/1991

More information about Hawke, Robert on The National Archive website.

Release Date: 10/10/1989

Release Type: Interview

Transcript ID: 7769

PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH ALAN JONES, RADIO 2UE,
9 OCTOBER 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JONES: My special guest in the studio, nice and early,
pristine in the white shirt too, the Prime Minister. Good
morning. PM: how are you?
JONES: No, mine's not white.
PM: Isn't it? What colour is it?
JONES: I don't know, but it's not white.
PM: Alright.
JONES: Have you backed a winner in the weekend?
PM: Yes, but backed more losers.
JONES: Well, we better start with the Melbourne Cup tip
before we get any further.
PM: Well, Almaarad's the class horse in the field.
JONES: Almaarad.
PM: But it's too early. I never make my selections for the
Melbourne Cup till a couple of days beforehand, you know
that. JONES: Is that owned by an Egyptian or something?
PM: Now, now, don't be racist.
JONES: I'm not, they just seem to have all the money to get
the best horses. Before we go this morning and get on to
this business, can I just play you a little extract of a
call that we had earlier this morning?
PM: Yes.

-2-
JONES: Because a lot of the people are ringing up about
what should be said and this was one piece of advice about
our interview this morning that one of the callers gave
CALLER: What I'd like you to do is, when you do direct the
question to the Prime Minister, would you ask him please not
to give us a bloody history lesson?
JONES: Yes.
CALLER: Every question, you know, a classic, go back a few
months you spoke to him. You said to him ' what are you
going to do about those people that are suffering because of
the pilots' problem'. He turned and give us a history
lesson what he'd done. Your question was ' what are you
going to do?'.
JONES: There you are. So can we keep those guidelines in
place, perhaps?
PM: Sure, sure, sure.
JONES: OK. Just take the pilots' dispute if we might.
PM: Yes.
JONES: The pilots now having rejected at the beginning the
whole notion of Industrial Relations Commission and six
percent, now seem to have virtually said ' well, if the
Commission will save us, we'll be saved'.
PM: Well, they said it at the beginning, as you say, yes,
the guidelines they knew enough about the guidelines to
say they wouldn't have a bar of them. Now they say ' now
we've found out what the guidelines are, we might be in
there'. The fact is, Alan, that the airlines are just
building up their employees and if the members of the
Federation want to be in that, they can apply to the
airlines to join and there'll be an opportunity for work for
them. Now whether the Commission makes them part of the
award making process is a matter for the Commission, mate.
JONES: Doesn't this mean at the end of the day really, to
look at it realistically, that there are going to be 200
fewer pilots?
PM: Many more less than that, mate.
JONES: Yes.
PM: Many more less than that.
JONES: So this bloke has induced everyone to resign,
they'll have no job to turn to and no redundancy package as
a result of the fact that he asked them to resign?

-3-
PM: You were talking about racing before. I said he's
delivered the greatest trifecta in industrial relations
history. He's cost them their jobs, their seniority and
their redundancies. I don't think there could have been, in
the history of industrial relations in this country, a worse
delivery by a union or employer leadership than is the case
here. JONES: The interesting issue in all of this, of course, is
that you're belted around the head, as are all your
predecessors, because in fact you've not been tough enough
with recalcitrant unions. You've certainly been very tough
and I have supported that stand here. What my callers are
now saying is ' what are you going to do about the waterfront
where it seems that the problem there is completely out of
hand. Are you going to be as tough with the Waterside
Workers' Federation as with the Pilots' Federation?'
PM: well, just let me say three things about that. Without
going into history, let me make this point which you're
aware of, that when we came to office in ' 83 for 31 of the
previous 34 years the other mob had been in office. So we
came into a situation where the culture and the tradition of
the waterfront and everywhere else had been formed under the
conservatives, they've done nothing. What we have done is
to set up this tripartite group. They've given us a report,
the employers, the users
JONES: Which is a disastrous-
PM: Well, at least it's a start and what Willis said in
June is that if they don't face up to the major issues, then
we will be prepared to consider the withdrawal of financial
assistance to the industry on the waterfront and to take
direct action. I think there will be advances out of this.
If they don't do it cooperatively we'll have to look at
doing it more directly.
JONES: See, it seems to me Prime minister, this is much
worse I mean, I've got a table here which you can actually
see but this is much worse than the Pilots' Federation
because here we have average delays per ship coming into
Sydney Harbour of 70.3 hours. one of these vehicles, this
was in August, was delayed by 110 hours, another one by 109,
another one by 131, another one of 84. The cost to this
country is enormous of that, isn't it?
PM: Yes, the inefficiencies of the waterfront are
unacceptably high. That's why we're taking this first step
of trying to get the parties together and say ' now look,
agree on improvements, agree on getting rid of the older
labour, get rid of people who are not the most efficient
you can have there, see if we can get an agreed wage through
between the employers and the trade unions and the
waterfront authorities and if you can't do it that way then

-4-
( PM cont): we will have to act more directly'. But, Alan,
you know that in this area that if you just tried to impose
some solution immediately from above it wouldn't work. So
we're going to try and do it via consultation
JONES: But you have done pilots' dispute and it has
worked. PM: Well, what we've done in the pilots' dispute is to say,
leave it to the employers and those who want to work with
them ( crashing sound and giggles)
JONES: That's part of the world of the media, Prime
Minister. PM: Part of the world of the media. It's just like Bourke
Street on a busy day isn't it?
JONES: Yes it is, it is. But, see, part of this report
that's been brought out talks about a redundancy package of
$ 160,000. Now, there's no way in the world you'd allow that
to proceed, would you?
PM: Well, you've got to get, the heart of the thing is that
what is being said is that the age of workforce is such that
you need to get rid of a lot of these people who are
Now, to get rid of people there you've got to have some
sort of redundancy arrangement to get rid of them. In the
end, the calculations are that you'll get a very significant
improvement in productivity on the waterfront if you get rid
of the older people, bring in newer people and also get the
concept of rather than pooled employment, but of individual
employer/ employee relationship. For God's sake, Alan, give
us credit for being the first Government in 35 years to do
something about it.
JONES: Yes, I think that you've set a precedent for
yourself though haven't you? You've acted responsibly and
tough with a recalcitrant Pilots' Federation. Now this
seems to be the most damaging other issue in relation to the
economy and our export capacity and credibility.
PM: But here I mean, in the case of the pilots, what
we're doing there is to resist a wages claim which, as
you've been good enough to acknowledge right through, would
have busted the economy. It's not a question of wages claim
here, it's a question of practices. Now in the pilots case,
of course, as again you've recognised, as a result of
resisting an unacceptably high wages claim we are getting
tremendous productivity improvements in the airline
operating industry. In this case, there is no suggestion of
unrealistically high wages, it's tackling

JONES: But they're getting $ 800 a week on average for about
27 hours, the waterside workers. $ 800 a week on average for
27 hours?
PM: But, what I'm saying
JONES: That nick off schemes?
PM: Look, what I'm saying in regard to wages system which
operates there and the wages outcome, they have been
negotiated within the system. Now, what hasn't operated in
a way which is useful to the Australian economy is the range
of practices which has produced in Australia an unacceptably
high level of delays and lack of productivity in the
waterfront industry. That's what we've got to deal with,
but there's no suggestion there that the waterfront
employers and the waterfront workers are now trying to break
the wages guideline system. It's a different and more
long-seated problem which has been allowed to grow up in
this country over the whole of the post war period. what
I'm saying is that at least now, give us credit for the fact
that after these 31 years of the other mob making it worse,
and worse, and worse, we're the first Government now to
tackle it. I can assure you that under this Government,
there will be improvements.
JONES: OK, just go back, one final question on the airline
industry. Just some figures we took out here. On September
18, according to my figures, 12,256 passengers flew
domestically in Australia, but of those Ansett and
Australian were only carrying 2,000 passengers. That's
about 16 percent of them. Now you've argued quite
consistently that we're going to get it up to 50, up to
percent, but when are we going to get Ansett and Australian?
I mean many of those were being carried by the RAAF planes,
by foreign carriers, by commuter services, by leased
aircraft PM: That's right.
JONES: When are we going to get it up to Ansett and
Australian being able to take over the role that they had
prior to this dispute?
PM: That will increasingly happen now. We've never put the
figures as other than that. It's a question of saying
something like, it's getting up towards 60 percent now of
the seats available in relation to what seats were available
before. But, of course, you're right in saying that it's
being made up in the components you talk about. Now,
increasingly you will see that changing because what's
happening is that the airlines are getting more and more
applicants. Ansett's made it clear that they've got 1,000
applicants now. That training process will go on, the
recruitment process will go on. So you will see in the

-6-
( PM cont): weeks ahead as their own pilots are being
recuited and trained that the proportion of Ansett and
Australian, of total operating capacity will increase.
JONES: But are we going to be flying in RAAF planes at
Christmas? PM: I doubt it very much.
JONES: So you think we'll be back to capacity? What time
frame do you put on it?
PM: Look, you've known me long enough. If I don't know the
answer, I'm not going to make it up. But it will
increasingly occur now because the pilots are faced with a
situation, the members of the Federation are faced, as they
know with a situation, unless they apply now, Alan, for
their jobs they are going to miss out.
JONES: OK. Well, let's get on to the big issue of the last
couple of days Kakadu. You must surely be aware, as a man
who's got his finger on the pulse and his antenna up, that I
don't think there's one political commentator in the country
who hasn't said that it's an act of political expediency. I
am sure you've read the editorial in the Australian today
which says rarely has the future of so many been compromised
by so few for such an unworthy cause. Could I just put it
to you that we're all in favour of the environment and we
all recognise the virtue of Kakadu National Park. But Sir
Arvi Parbo said the Government's word can no longer be taken
and valued and accepted in the light of what's
PM: OK. Let's get straight into that, eh? Sir Arvi Parbo,
talking about people whose word can't be taken. Let's nail
Sir Arvi straight away because he deliberately went on the
media of Australia and misrepresented, presumably
deliberately, the situation in regard to the communication
between us. So if he's talking about who can be trusted,
let's have it right on the line, Sir Arvi. You have left an
impression that I declined to return your call. The facts
are, which is a pity the media didn't have the decency to
check with my office, is that he rang. Right? One. Two, I
wasn't there in my office. Three, he didn't ask for a call
to be returned, he simply pointed out that there was some
suggestion going around, he understood, that perhaps BHP
wasn't still interested in Coronation Hill and he just
wanted to leave a message with the Prime Minister, which we
knew by writing, that BHP was still interested. No
suggestion or a request for a return call, but this man
talks about whether you can be trusted or not is
deliberately leaving the impression that he asked for a call
to be returned. So let's have Arvi Parbo right on the line

-7-
JONES: But he is the Chairman of BHP
PM: OK
JONES: And you did tell them they could go ahead with the
mine PM: And he is also the person who's bringing into question
whether someone's word can be trusted or not. So, Sir Arvi
Parbo can't be trusted in terms of the relationship between
the Government and BHP. Now, let's get to the question of
Coronation Hill and BHP. Very simple. We said to BHP, go
ahead, do your EIS and they had done that. I was asked
yesterday, you know, almost shouldn't BHP be congratulated
for doing the right thing. BHP were doing no more than
obeying the law of this country.
JONES: No, but you virtually said to Loton, didn't you, to
be fair, you've said to Loton in a letter no worries,
this is going to go ahead, this will be OK, you've got my
word for it, you said that to Loton and you wrote that to
Loton didn't you?
PM: I'll show you exactly what I wrote to Loton so that
there be no gild on the lily. This is what I wrote ' I can
assure you there's been no change in Government policy on
the conservation zone concept or in relation to Coronation
Hill'. Now there hadn't been any change in regard to the
concept, certainly the size. Just let me, so that you know
exactly, this Now, look, because I'll show you, here's
the Cabinet decision.
JONES: Alright.
PM: That letter to Brian Loton was on 9 October 1987
following a Cabinet decision of 4 June 1987. Now let me
show you, you can read this here. The Cabinet noted that
resolution of these issues, that is the final boundaries of
the zone, the final resolution be that it should be based on
the following principles. There will not be any increase in
the overall size of the conservation zone, any change
should, as far as possible, involve an increase in the size
of the South Alligator River catchment area within the park.
That is a reduction in the zone and any change that, as far
as practicable, maximise the area of the park around of
particular environmental importance. Now what I have said
to BHP, no change in the concept or, in relation to
Coronation Hill, and that is right.
JONES: But now Cook was carrying the case in Cabinet wasn't
he for approval of the Coronation Hill mine and retention of
the old exploration zone boundaries? Now, I wasn't in
Canberra, but the argument is that Cook didn't get into the
Cabinet room

-8-
PM: Eh? He was there for the whole of the discussion.
JONES: Are you talking
PM: The whole of the discussion.
JONES: The arguments out of Canberra are that you spent an
hour and a half on the phone to Phillip Toyne
PM: Now, come on, let's no, don't jump from one point
JONES: No, well hang on, no I'm coming to
PM: Inaudible
JONES: I'll come to Cook in a minute.
PM: No you didn't, you started with Cook.
JONES: Righto, we'll go back
PM: And you said he didn't get into the Cabinet room.
JONES: OK.
PM: Wrong. He was in the Cabinet room for the whole of the
discussions. JONES: He was in the Cabinet room. Well, Walsh and Dawkins
and Button and Cook were opposed to the decision weren't
they?
PM: What were the names, which
JONES: Walsh? There's no way Walsh would have supported it
PM: Well, come on give us the names.
JONES: Walsh. Yay or nay? Peter Walsh.
PM: Come on, the rest of them?
JONES: No, what about Walsh. Was he in support of it or
not? PM: I'm not going to tell you
JONES: Dawkins?
PM: I'm not going to tell you who in the
JONES: Button?
PM: who in the Cabinet voted which way or another.

-9-
JONES: Button and Cook.
PM: I'm not going to tell you who voted which way or
another. Firstly, there was no vote.
JONES: But I'm putting it to you that they didn't support
it. PM: I have said, I have said that there were differences of
opinion. of course there were.
JONES: So you adopted a unique strategy here, didn't you?
You put your reputation on the line, you led the debate
PM: I didn't put my reputation on the line, I just put the
arguments there.
JONES: But you've never done that before, have you? You've
never PM: Yes, I have before. Yes, I have before. Look, see
what you've got to remember is that we had discussed it
before, Alan we discussed it before. This wasn't first up.
I'd spent a lot of time dealing with it so I thought well
we're going to have it quite clear, here's the issues, this
is what I think ought to happen, it's not as though this was
the beginning of the discussion.
JONES: Are you worried about the greenies, politically?
PM: No, I'm not worried about them. I mean we've been
doing a bit of light hearted bantering here to some extent.
But there's a very important question you ask here, Alan
about the greenies. I think it's a fact of life, not only
in Australia but around the world, that there is an
increasing realisation about the importance of the
environment. I mean I think this now Alan, you'd agree, it
cuts right across
JONES: We do agree.
PM: Economic groups, aged groups
JONES: I think all Australia agrees with that.
PM: So when we're talking on this issue about whether it's
the greenies or not, it's not the organised green movement
whether it's the Wilderness Society, the Conservation
Foundation we've just got kids, women, old and young
people out there who are fundamentally now concerned about
the obligation we have to protecting the environment now and
into the future. So I think that politics are being shaped
here and around the world by that fact. It's not because
you've got an organised group, I just think people are
saying now that there are things that governments have got

( PM cont) to take into account when they make a decision,
whether it's about a mine or something else, have got to
take these things into account, and I take them into
account. I make no apology for that at all.
PM: And you must as Prime Minister. But let me put another
scenario to you. Out in the western suburbs of Sydney and
the western suburbs of Melbourne and right across Australia,
people on $ 380 a week, if they've got a house could be
paying up to 16, 17 or 18% interest rates.
PM: Yes.
JONES: Now they are paying those interest rates because
we've got a yawning current account deficit, the only way we
can fund that debt is to get money in from overseas at that
rate. we could reduce that debt by starting that Coronation
Hill mine, we could reduce it earlier that otherwise would
be the case. So put down ruthlessly and bluntly, you have
preferred the greenies to middle Australia on 18%.
PM: Now there's two things to say about that. It's like a
lot of your propositions, you very sensibly, you use the
dramatic illustration to try and draw out an argument.
There are two things that need to be said about it. In
terms of the total picture of Australia's economic
operations as is said of the front page of today's
Financial Review, and no doubt you would've read it this
is absolutely marginal, absolutely marginal in the totality
of things. But the second point I make to you is this and
I'd like your response to it; you will concede that the
logic of what you're saying is that in a situation like this
it's the economic imperative that should always apply. That
means why don't we drill for
JONES: inaudible
PM: We'll you're saying that I have put environmental
considerations ahead of an economic one. OK, why shouldn't
I authorise drilling for oil on the Barrier Reef because
there might be oil there? People wanted to drill for oil
there and according to
JONES: It's not analogous with Kakadu Park.
PM: Why isn't it?
JONES: Well because Collins who knows the thing backwards,
your own Labor Senator up there, knows it backwards and he
said that the people he's spoken to are supportive of it,
it's not in fact desecrating the environment. You've got
people in your own Cabinet saying it and we've got this
yawning current account debt.
PM: We've got a current account
JONES: That's an economic imperative, isn't it?

-11-
PM: We've got a current account debt and let me say that
one of the greatest sources of revenue into the future to
deal with that current account debt is tourism. one of the
great features of Australian tourism is Kakadu. If we were
to do anything, this is a balance of argument about whether
you would damage Kakadu or not, I say you should err on the
side of caution.
JONES: But this isn't Kakadu, PM. This 25 square
kilometres in an outfit which is what, 2000 square
kilometres. PM: You say it's not Kakadu. This is the catchment area
and I think you understand this this is the catchment area
which feeds into Kakadu. what we have done is to put the
overwhelming proportion now of the catchment area, the whole
water system of Kakadu, into a national park.
JONES: inaudible
PM: You are saying that you've got Kakadu here which is all
water and it's fed from here, this isn't in Kakadu. If this
JONES: I know it's in Kakadu but..
PM: If something happens here and the water system going
into there you have buggered for all time
JONES: But see don't you think that you are in fact -not
intentionally, I'm not suggesting this deliberately -but
you are also deceiving the electorates. You see the
perception I can tell you the electorate have out there is
that there's this glorious wasteland which is completely
untouched and we're stopping these terrible despoilers from
BHP from ruining it, when in fact this place, this area what
you've called the conservation zone and now you're calling
the exploration zone, was mined in the ' 50s and ' 60s, it's
got a gigantic hole in it, and Bob Collins has said I mean
do you think he's on the wrong wave length these are his
constituents? He said this is a nonsense. This thing has
got no conservation value at all.
PM: He hasn't said that. Let me make the point to you and
JONES: But it has been mined, hasn't it. It has been
mined, hasn't it? In the ' 50s and
PM: Of course it's been mined in the past. A lot of things
happened in the ' 50s
JONES: It's got a big hole in it.

-12-
PM: It hasn't got a big hole in it. Stop this business of
you know, have you stopped beating your wife because you
know that doesn't work with me. Now just come down a gear,
come down a gear, my friend and just recognise this. A lot
of things happened in the ' 50s and ' 60s, did they not? A
lot of things happened in the ' 50s and ' 60s which if we had
the knowledge that we have now about the environment, we
wouldn't have allowed to happen, right?
JONES: Yes, sure.
PM: OK. Now let's just come back to this point, Alan.
Here's Kakadu up here, your wetlands. This area can be as
unattractive, some of it, as you like. Some of it is very
attractive. Do you realise that just with only 2 or 3
kilometres from one of these mining areas where the shot was
taken in Crocodile Dundee which you'd recall
JONES: Yes I've seen that.
PM: You know the lovely shot. So it's not all what has
been referred to by one of my colleagues as clapped out
buffalo country.
JONES: Gareth Evans, next President of the United Nations.
PM: Sure, sure. Is he next? numbers?
JONES: Him running the United Nations and Malcolm Fraser
running the Commonwealth.
PM: inaudible
JONES: What chances
PM: We'll have a talk about that in a minute. We'll have a
talk about that in a minute. Look, you know that this can
be in itself relatively unattractive but if coming through
here you have the water system which feeds into the wetlands
of the Kakadu Park, it doesn't matter if that is
unattractive as Billy Smith's backside. If in fact the
water system going into the Kakadu is coming through here,
then that's what you've got to take account of.
JONES: Alright. Well let me just put another thing to you.
You've done that for the environmentalists and you believe
that's an issue and you've accommodated it
PM: Now I haven't done it just for the environmentalists,
it's for everyone.
JONES: Right, OK. Now what about middle Australia on 18%?
What can they look forward to between now and the election?

-13-
PM: Well they can look forward to this; you've got tight
fiscal policy, tight wages policy and we'll keep monetary
policy as tight as is necessary until we can see the level
of activity coming down. I still believe that as we get
into next year, Alan we'll have seen the level of activity
coming down and I believe that will allow some easing of
policy then. But I have said and Paul says, we both say we
won't be easing monetary policy until we do see that
actually coming down.
JONES: OK, so you talk about next year. Now does that mean
that an election for this year is out? Can I just put a
scenario to it? It does seem to me doesn't it that if you
were to have an election this year, you'd have to announce
it according to the Electoral Act 33 days back by the
end of October or before the end of October, which is the
end of this month. You're going to be away in part of this
month. Does that logistics remove entirely, whether you'd
like it or not, the prospect of an election this year?
PM: Well, virtually. I mean as you know I've and I think
I've said it to you before Alan, talking on the radio I've
always thought that the election will be in 1990. I mean
I've conceded yesterday that some of my people have been
talking to me about the possibility of this year and I
listen to what people say, it's silly if you've responsible
people around you to say ' I'm not going to listen to you'.
But I've listened to them and I really believe that the
election will be next year.
JONES: Now on that 18%, you last week gave $ 200M to four
banks which on aggregate I think, had profits to June 30 of
about $ 3.9B. What about the building societies? Where do
the hundreds of thousands of people borrowing from building
societies PM: You know the difference there. What was done in regard
to the banks was that we have got what we call non-callable
deposits from them in which there is a penalty interest
rate. Now since the time at which that penalty was fixed,
because of the rise in market rates, the size of the penalty
has increased. So what we essentially did was to bring the
penalty back to what it was at the beginning. And as a
result of doing that, these banks are able to hold mortgage
rates at 17%. Now I don't think anyone can argue that
that's not a sensible thing to do.
JONES: But at $ 3.9B profit the penalty couldn't have been
affecting them too much, could it?

-14-
PM: Oh well now are you introducing the concept now I
mean it's interesting if you are that what you expect of
banks and other sectors of private enterprise is to act in a
way which is non-market oriented and to act
philanthropically? I mean I would be quite prepared to
entertain that discussion with you but what's happenening,
as you know, is that the cost of their funds-
JONES: That's the market orientation-
PM: If we've got-
JONES: You're interfering with the market-
PM: If we've got the new Alan Jones philosophy-
JONES: That's not new. Perfectly consistent. You're
interfering with the market, you're giving them $ 200M of our
money. PM: I'm saying that we are restoring in that market
situation the penalty that we had in the market operation
when we started the non-callable deposits system. We didn't
change that, we restored it to what it was and within that
then the market operates.
JONES: Just one final thing, because we've got to go. A
caller came this morning and of course I have a bit of a
soft spot I'm sure you have for POW's. The caller said
that now that the Government's been so generous to the
airlines, might they consider giving the ex-POW's the three
shillings a day sustenance allowance promised them by
successive governments since the end of the war. Do you
think that people out there feel as though that the dice are
falling equally on those who are in need?
PM: Well I think it's true that people will never and
think that those in need have ever been given enough. All I
can say is that in the last Budget we made additional
arrangements for those in need generally, including people
in the veterans area and the veterans organisations have
been good enough to acknowledge that to us, they have said
that they appreciate what we've done, including in the
prisoner of war area, we've done as much as we think in this
curcumstance you can do but we'll continue to examine
specific proposals that are put up to us by representatives.
JONES: Do you often wonder what star you were born under?
Here you are with a world record, an Australian record
current account, record interest rates, record levels of
inflation and here the polls are saying that you can still
or relative to I mean when Gough Whitlam was running
inflation at 15%, the OECD average was about 11. The OECD
is now about 3 1/ 2 isn't it, 4
PM: 8.

JONES: And you're running at 7.
PM: Now you always like to be
JONES: Absolutely.
PM: You like to put the complete picture.
JONES: I'm offering you a compliment there. I'm just
saying that you still look like winning an election
PM: I could feel that coming so I wasn't going to cut you
off completely. I also wanted you to say complete the
record and I have this record. A rate of employment growth
more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, 5 times
faster than under the Fraser/ Howard/ Peacock government. So
we've got world record growth in that sense and in regard to
environmental matters, the World Heritage bureau is saying
that no government in the world has done more to advance
world heritage values than has this Government. So we've
got the record on employment creation and on environmental
issues. JONES: Good to talk to you, Prime Minister. Time's beaten
us, I'm sorry but thank you for your time, as always.
PM: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with you.
ends

Transcript 7769