TRRNGCRIPT OF IX?! RVIEW WITH IR3L RICHKRDS, " OFPIG PROGRAM,
ABC, ) 43LBOURNE, 23/ 3/ 00.
3& 310 PROOF ONLY
KRI We have people from around Australia who will talk to you
but a lot of their questions have had to be pro-recorded because
of the difference in time zones, we'll go to some of those first.
While people are calling, if I can start with a question. The
economic downturn recorded in the negative growth figures
released this week. That sconomio downturn in Australia, doss it
make families hurt?
PM Essentially what it means is that Australian families are
going to now got the certainty of lower interest rates. What
we'Iv, had to do Kol was to slow the economay down somewhat because
we were sucking in too many imports and I think all your
listeners understand that. Fortunately now we've got consumption
and production back into kilter which means that with certainty
we can gay that once we're elected then interest rates will comes
down and that means a significant help to Australian families.
KR: Are there wash-ups in other areas. I mean whit* this
machinery will bring downl interest rates, will it for example
cause more bread-winners in Australian families to be unemployed?
PH: No, what we will. know the Listeners don't like
economic jargon, x don't like it if I can avoid it, but the
jargon in we'll get a soft landing and that's the assessment
generally of the economics profession. That we've had to slow
things down but we'll continue to have growth and we'll continue
to have employment growth. Z think we won't havo, we cant
expect to maintain the momentum of employment growth in the
immediate future, the same degree of growth. I mean what we've
had in this period we've been in office Kel, is just fantastic.
We'Vie had employment growth at twice the rats of the rest of the
world and five times faster the r~ te of job creation that existed
under our: predecessors. Now in the immediate future# the rate of
employment growth will not be as high I think as before. We'll
probably have some fall in the participation rate, that's the
number of people wanting to work. There's* very interesting
statistics Kelf which I've used for the campaign and which 1
44./ 2
-2-
think has interested people and r think would interest your
listener@ very much# and that is, with the great economic growth
that we ' ve had under my covernmelto more people have decided that
they want to work# so that the participation rate hot increased.
If we had the same participation rate now a~ when we came to
office# the unemployment rate would be jis : veo n. percent.
KI Right. A lot of those extra people who've decided they want
to work of course are spouses who may not have worked it interest
rates weren't quite as high to they are though.
PHI Rol, there are some, I accept that. There are some woman in
Australia who have made the decision to work because ot economic
circumutances they feel they need to* but what we've got to
understand is that what we've witnessed in Australia, as is
happening In the rest of the world, is that m& ay more woenn are
making the decision that as well as getting the satisfaction that
* they get, and the great satisfaction ou of being wives and
mothers and the satisfaction of that domestic environment, more
and more women are also making the decision that they wish to be
as well, members of the workforce. And me what we've had in this
period since we've been in office# with this growth of 1.6
million new jobs which is unprecedented, the majority of those
have been women, but with many of them wanting to do that as an
act of fulfillment. Now our attitude is this, that for those
women who want to get their complete fulfillment Rel, from
remaining in the home as wife and mother, that's a judgement that
we applaud and that we've tried to assist by the massive
Increases in education payments to wee that their children geat
better educated, the greater provision of ahildcare places, so
that even although they're not working there are places for them
to put their children it they want to go out and do other things
in a non-working environment. but for those who do want to go
and work, to be ' part of their fulfilment, we've brought in
affirmative action, and the women'a movement acknowledges this,
we'Ive done more than has ever been done before to open up the
avenues of employment for women and for the future which is, I
* believe, skost Important. Thu most fundamental thing that we're
doing is to reform the education system so that there won't be a
projudice in the education system which has meant historically
that girls tend to be streamed into a limited range of
opportunities. Under the changes in, the education system that
we'rge making, girl. going into the education system are going to
have open to them the same range of occupations and vocations
that are open to boys# and that's the way it should boo both in
toemsf equity, Rel, and also In terms of economic good sense. / 3
-3-
R. Yes, I've got a thirteen year old daughter who's doing well
in Maths and science and I appreciate that.
PM Well that's beaut isn't it.
KRs Yes, that's important. Listen, I Must Stop asking
questions, but the temptation to ask just one more Lu too great.
In order to reognise the work of the woomen who do stay at homer
would you and your advisers ever consider counting their work,
their own paid domestic work, which is very productive but
doesn't produce cash as part of our GDP, because it could be an
important recognition~ or what they're doing.
PHI I think that that would be a synthetic confection of
recognition, I mean it'. the sort of thing that might appeal to
some politicians who've done nothing in concrete terms. Wt'
much more important to do as my Government has done# to recognise
the significance of the home and to make the decisions, the
tough, hard decisions which are of value to the woman. And if I
could say So# my judgement in that the best single thing that
the Government can have done, and which we'll continue to do# is
in the field of education. There is nothing more important to
the woman than that she has the knowledge tnat her Child is going
to have an equal opportunity to have his or her talent@ fully
developed in the education system. When I came to office, Kel,
after seven years of conservative government, I inherited the
obscenity, nothing loe than that, of a pattern of privilege in
education. After seven years the conservati~ ves had lifted the
retention rate in the education system by a miserable two
percentage pointe, from thirty four percent to thirty ciX
perce. nt . Now that simply meant that they walked out of office,
having virtually not lifted the retention rate at all# and
leaving an Australia with one of the worst retention rate figures
in eduvation in the whole of the world. only one in three of our
kids Stayed on in the education system which meant, I can tell
you, that predominantly that was the kids of the well-to-do. Now
the kids of the rich and the well-to-do have every right to stay
on in education, of course they do# but they have no more right
than the kids that come from lower income or middle income homes.
Pow what love done with my colleagues is to shift that from one
in three to two in three# so I removed that pattern~ of
privilege in educational opportunity and we've done that
deliberately by more than doubling the secondary education
alloyjnces to low to middle income families, trebling Au~ tudy
places. Bo that now we have an Australia where that pattern of
privilege on the education map has' been removed, and kids fromn
all families, if they want to and their parents want them to, are
e o a o / 4
-4-
stayLng on in school and we're providing infinitely more places
in ThP and in the university mystem. Now doing those things,
doing those things Roe is much more important than some
statistical confection about writing in what truly is important
work, nothing I'm saying wants to underwrite in any way or
understate the Importance of the work that is done in the home,
LL's vital, the nation stops without it. DUt to adopt some
statistical confection which would be extraordinarily difficult
is not doing the things that count for women who are working at
home. What they want Is action.
KR: Okay, let's go to the calls. In fact the first call is
about education which you've been talking about. This was
tuoorded yesterday afternoon. It's Helen from Jamestown in South
Australia. ELENt I'm a concerned country parent, ILving two hundred
kilometres north of Adelaide. My major concern Is the decline of
country education opportunities. Five years ago I left secondary
teaching to have a family and in that time the range of subjects
has declined markably, with now many of our Year 12 subjects only
being offered by correspondence. It's just now good enough. No
allowance has been made for the obvious smaller numbers Ln
tountry schools and all staffing is then absolute set for the
Cities so that ( Inaudible) staffLing itself is a real issue too
and people won't come to the country, why should they, when the
same opportunities don't exist here. My son's about to enter
primary school and I truly fear that there may not be a viable
secondary school In seven years. I don't want to have to
mend my children away to Adelaide to school at my cost# but what
alternative can you offer?
KRR Country education, your reaction to that.
PM: Let me make these points, which I trust you will see as
relevant to your concern. The first thing to say is that the
Commonwealth, by definition, doesn't have direot control over
primary and' secondary education, that is a state matter. What
we've triad to do however, in reocognisLng the Importance of
primary and secondary education is to develop with the states
common curricular standard. so that we van have a situation that
iLreapective of the state, and rcoognLing the fact that each
years tene of thousands of people move interstate and are
prejudice by the differing standards, to try and move to a
situaion in thL country where we have common standards. Now as
far a$ the difficulty of getting teachers to go to country areas
is concerned, no government is going to be able to change the
fundamental facts which drive individuals to make a decision an
to whether they want to live and work in the country or in the
city. I mean that's a fundamental which is in a sense beyond
judgement. But what we can do insofar an education is conoerned,
and what we have done, is to make sure that the allowances that
are paid for people who have to send their kids away from their
local area are fair. We have massively increased'the secondary
education allowance, more than doubled it, in the period vevre
been in office, more than doubled it# and trebled the Auetudy
places. so that means that where there is a financial burden or
cost in keeping the kids in the education system, then we have
directed a massive increase in funds towards that, and in this
campaign, as you would know Helen# I've made a decision to bring
in an additional payment which will help parents who are keeping
their kids on in school, and that is a very significant increase
to meet the cost of the child staying on in school. So as far as
O we can, we've done these things, we've kept up assistance in
regard to isolated parents, Isolated children'@ allowances, and
the test finally Helen, ham got to be in the overall statistics.
What we have now is a revolutLonLsed Australian education
position. Hothing can avoid the total condemnation of our
predecessocse that in seven years they virtually lifted the
retention rate not one wit, whereas I have virtually doubled it
in my seven years. And that means we are creating the beet
building block for the future of this country by making sure
that there is an equality of educational opportunity. Helen, let
me conclude by saying this, I don't pretend that perhaps more
should be looked at for the sort of position you'te talking
about, and I give you my undertaking that in this next period
I'll see that in the discussions that my minister for aducatLon
has with his or her state counterparts, that this particular
situation is looked at to see if there is more than we can
realistically do.
KRt Yes, because you don't run the systems, the state rung the
systems# you just fund them.
' 141 But we want to get as much of our ideas iO as we can and I
think the point that Helen makes is a reasonable one.
KRI Okay, back to the offpeak open line. This is Matilda from
Perth. MATILDAs I would like to ask Hr Hawks in which financial way
would: his Government be prepared to support the one income
familyt S/ 6
PHI Well let me tell you and it'll take a while because there's
a lot of things I can go into but I'll do it as quickly as I can.
Let me, first of all, may this Matilda. Let's go to tax first of
all, and z hope in this last twenty-four hours that every
Australian will have firmly in his and her mind the concept of
equity in regard to ordinary families and the well-to-do, the
contrast between my position and Andrew Peacock's position.
Matilda, just before we went into this election, we negotiated a
wage/ tax package with the ACTU and under that tax part of the
package Matilda, I just want you to understand this, that for the
ordinary average family, you can take the average weekly earning
figure or twenty eight thousand dollar*# a single-income
familylthey've got twenty-eight thousand dollars. Under the tax
package that z negotiated with Kr Keating and the AOTU, that
family at that level will get a tax cut of seven dollars fifty a
week, seven fifty a week, and I will get thirteen dollars twenty
five. 2n other words, 1' 11 get less than aix dollars a week more
than that average family. Mr Peacock has a tax proposal for a
two-tier tax system. What's the position there? That average
family, under the Peacock proposal, would get a cut of $ 4.73 a
week and he as Prime Minister would get $ 104.76 a week. In other
words he'd give himself a $ 100 a week more as a tax Out that he'd
give to your average single income family on $ 28,000. Now there
I hope in this last twenty-four hours, every Australian voter
will be saying to himself and herself, what sort of an
alternative government and Prime Minister is this. For the sort
of family you're talking about Matilda, he'd give himself a
hundred dollars a week more than he'd give for the average family
In tax auto. xt is a disgraoe, an absolute disgrace that we
should have that sort of situation be put to the Australian
people. Now let me go to the other areas Matilda. Let me go to
the question of family allowance and family allowance supplement.
This year Matilda, under family allowance supplement, I'm through
my Government, paying to the lower income people in this
community over two billion dollars in family allowance
suppluments. do that Matilda we don't get caught up in great
national aggregate figures, let me give you an illustration for a
single income family, you're talking about that, on $ 320 a week,
and it's got three kids, That single income family on $ 320 a
week, is getting from my Oovernment, under the family allowance
supplement, $ 110 a week tax-free, which is equivalent Matilda to
$ 170 a week wage increase. Now there yOu have it. I've talked
about tax, I've talked about the family allowance supplement, lot
me go into the area of health. When I came to office, Matilda,
therv" were two million of my fellow Australians, a great number
of those would've been 2 think from single income families and
lower single income familLes, two million of my fellow
/ 7
-7-
Australian* had no cover. It they got a hill from the doctor, a
big bill from the doctor or a big bill from the hospital, they
were In strifeg. I've ended that and so for every one of those
families you're talking about nov they have no fear of the
doctor'$ bill or the hospital bill. They are covered by
Medicare, for which obviously under the Opposition is going to be
for the chop# so I look at education# I look at health, I look at
tax. hloo in tax, let me make this point, not only does Mr
Peacock want to give himself a hundred dollars a week more in tax
Cuts than he wants to give for your average family# but he wants
to do something which is outrageous for the sort of people you ' re
talking about Matilda. He wants to scrap the capital gain. tax,
which will be bringing in billion* of dollars in the years ahead,
to be spent on families like the ones you're talking about, on
their education, on their health, on their roads, on all the
things they need and he's going to take those billions of dollar.
away from you, out of the Commonwealth public revenue and shovel
it back Into the pockes of the wealthiest loes than one percent
of the Australian population. So whether you look at tax,
education, health, all the thing. that are important, there's
only one choice to be made. if you think it'. fair to give the
Prime Minister a hundred dollars a week more in tax cuts than the
average family, then you vote for Peacock.
KRt Just going back to the family assistance supplement for a
moment, that will definitely continue in your next terml
PM: Not only definitely continue, we've mad* the decisions,
they're in place that those allowances are indexed. so we've
done what's never been done before. We've not just simply made
dscisions and allow them the value of those decisions and amounts
to he whittled away by inflation. They are indexed.
KRI Michael from Sydney, good morning.
MICHIAEL: Good morning to you Prime Xinister. Could I ask you a
quick question on fairneas? Now I applaud what you've done in
the last many years to Implement your standards of greater
fairness, rather than talking about them, and especially I
applaud this new policy of stopping dole rorting as you've termed
it* But we're all Struggling and we're all having a hard time
paying taxes and mortgages and mo forth. Yet there'* s a lot of
social security rotting going on out there, one of the very
unfortunate ones of course being unmarried mothers benefits and
such-thiings. What can we do about making this fair to everyone
who pays and doesn't mind paying for genuine oases ( inaudibla)
means. 6 / e8
Ks Michael, let me make these points. I must take up, and
vigorously, with you one assumption in your questLont that it's
not fair to be paying allowances to unmarried mothers. Z mean I
just repudiate that concept. I mean you have the situation of
unmarried mothers arising for a range of reasons and I don't
think Auntralian society in such a compaseLonless, morally
judging community that it's going to say in regard tO people in
that situation that the community hasn't got some obligation to
help* What we've got to do of course, Kl and MiChael, is to try
and make sure that in regard to our range of mocial security
payments, including payments to single parents* that we get them
off the concept of the beneticiary outlook and that's why we're
abolishing the dole as such, the unemployment benefit, the dole,
is going. Because what we're going to say to people, you have no
tight to a benefit as such for being unemployed. What you've got
a right to expect from the community is that the community will
provide a range of training programs to equip you to become part
of the workforce and so the statistics michael are quite amasing
in regard to single parents. We've drastioally reduced the
numbers and proportion of people who are just getting Lngle
parent benefits, and what's happening is that they have been
trained under relevant programs to put them back into the
workforce. I mean Michael, that's the sort of thing that you'd
want to leep that's my concept. We inherited a system where
unemployment benefits had exploded because in the last year
before we came to office there was another quarter of a million
people who had been thrown onto the unemployment scrapheap. Now
we've drastically reduced, enormously reduced the number of
people on unemployment benefits, not only by creating a record
number of jobs Michael, but by specifically creating a range of
training programs so that what people in this country have got to
understand is under Labor it's not a government that's just going
to give them a benefit am of right. What they're going to get
are payments which are going increasingly to equip them to become
part of the workforoe. That's not only right from the point of
view of the community, it's also right from the point of view of
the individual because they want the dignity of being able to
S support themselves.
KR: Yes, in fact because I do this program I've got the figures
in front of me, it's something like eighty-five percent of women
on the supporting mothers benefit are either deserted or divoroed
or separated wives. Ten percent of widows and five percent of
the sort of teenage mothers that Hichael was getting concerned
aboqt but for those deserted wives, they want the opportunity
to retrain and get back into the workforce, which is what you
were talking about, but they can vet caught in poverty traps
/ 9
can't they, whereby they in faot get more support for their
family if they don't retrain, if they go on a training program
they lose the qualification for that benefit.
PMs But we've moved to very substantially eliminate that problem
of poverty traps whioh has been in fact reaognised by the welfare
sector, KRs Lot's go to carolLne now# from Byron Day.
CAROLIN31 My questions relate to the funding for the
psyohiatrically disabled, and the first question is, is it true
Xr Hawke that sincs the introduction of the Disabilities Act of
1906, nothing has been spent on any specific project for the
pyschiatrLcally disabled. Zs it also true that it was never the
intention of Dr Blewett that the mentally ill should receive
monies from his department and that ( inaudible) mental illness
has been as a state health matter and not as a Commonwealth
roesponsibility. And the third question I would ask you Mr Prime
Minister, is would your Government, If re-elected, introduce a
polioy on mental health? You may appreoLate that we as parents
and carets suffer a great loss through mental illness and the
suffering of our loved ones is beyond desoription. You could
certainly alleviate our problems by positive action in
government, eepeoially in the area of research, and z'd be very
happy to writ, a letter to you if that was okay, and properly
outline out major concerns for the mentally ill.
PHi Thank you very much for your question, could I go to the
last part first. This is not just a flip answer, z would
appreciate it very much it you would write to me and if you'd
write to me care of Parliament House, Canberra, and I will
guarantee not only that 2 will read what you've got to say but
I'll see that the relevant minister in my next administration
also takes it into account. You're into an area where of course
we have the problem which is acknowledged in your number of
questions which I'll try and bring together, that as in the area
of transport and education, so in the area of health, there are
divided responsibilitis between the Iederal government and the
states. What we've tried to do Carolyn, in this area, as in
others, is where we haven't got the direct constitutional
responsibility as we have not, this is an area of state
responsibility, we've recognined that there are real problems for
people like yourself that you talk about, and what my ministers,
and that's pertioularly Heal Blewett, have a major responsibllty.
Khia he's tried to do is, in discussion with the states, to get
some sort of uniform approeoh. and uniform concept of the
responsibility that the community has to the range of people that
you're talking about, and we have been engaged in this in a
number of wayso not only in the area of actual treatment and
discusuions with him an that, but also of courtti, one of the
important areas Carolyn in to try and look at the area of
employment opportunities, and there's been the concoept as you
know in the past, of trying basically, if not intentionly# at
least that was the result# to try and bids people with
disabilities# whether they were mental disabilities or physical
disabilities, to try and put them away and almost pretend they
didn' t exist. Our concept rather Carolyn has been to have an
approach which as far as possible in going to give people with
disabilities, whether they be physical or mental, the greatest
possible opportunity of integrating into the conventional
workforce, because we think that's best for the people concerned
and it's the best thing that th. community should do end no
that's the concept that weeve used in out discussions with the
states in the areas of say where we don't have the primary
responsibility. out I conclude as I began Carolyn# by saying I
would appreciate it if you would write to me and X give you my
personal undertaking that not only will T read the letter but
211 see that it's considered by those with the direct
responsibility. KR: Too* the policy of deinstitutionalisation, pursued by a lot
of the states, has created a lot of pain for the people who are
the immediate family and caters of the mentally ill. They
feel sometimes loot without supports
IN. Yes, and they are entitled to expect appropriate support.
Ras Graham from Brisbane now.
GRAHAM: Whatever your personal views about abortion may be,
there are many Australians who sincerely believe that abortion ie
deliberate killing of innocent unborn human life. Thos. who hold
such a view believe that this is immoral and unjust# that they
should be Compelled to help pay for such murder through Medicare.
S if Labor is re-elected, will you allow an abortion funding
abolition bill, such am the one put forward in the last
Parliament by Alistair Webster# to be put to a vote? tf not# why
not? PHt Well Graham, let me say that you go in your question to
something which is obviously a matter of very deep foeling for a
lot of people. May S may it's not only a matter of depth of
feeling by those who share your view# but what you must
understand is an equally deep foeling by others who have an
/ 11
-11-
opposite point of View. I have never tried to hide my posLtion
and 2 restate it. it's probably why Z'm the target of abuse by
some people. I have a clear view Graham, that this is a question
for the woman to determine. wow in saying that Graham, I don't
in any men* e want to be denigratory of your view, I respeat the
depth of the feeling that you and others have on this. I've got
to say with equal honesty to you that it's my view that it's the
right of the woman to make the Judgement. if people want to try
and have a consideration of the piece of legislation I don't mind
first speaking for myself. 2 propose a piece Of legislation
being considered. My view in those circumstances, is that it
should be a conscience vote on this matter. We'd better
postphone the vote for a fairly long time though, to give Me
Blunt the time to make up his mind. ge doesn't seem to know
where he Is on the issue.
XR1 Mind you, the community debate over abortion is beyond
politicians to settle I would assume.
PMs Yes, and that's why I say, Koj I think it ought to be a
conscience vote, but as I say, we'd better postphone it for a
couple of years because Charles Blunt needs a long time to make
up his mind. He's occupied both powitions apparently, within the
4pace of a week.
KR: Let's go to Greg now# from South 6tirling in Western
Australia, near Albany.
cRSO. T'd like to ask the Prime Minister how many children live
in poverty in Australia, and is the number rising or fallLng?
And also, of the one billion trees that they are going to plant,
how many have they planted and how are they doing?
VN: Let's go to children first and then we'll go to the trees,
and I thank you for your question and Z hope there's no cynicism
involved. If there L, the facts will knock you over. The
number of children in poverty has rapidly diminished. I won't
rely on my judgement about the delivery of my promise that there
be no financial need for a child to live in poverty by i990.
Rather, let me quote to you the words from three independent
bodies who work in the area and who don't parade on the periphery
with prejudices. What are these words? rirstly, of Peter
Hollingworth from the Brotherhood, of St Laurence, he said# in
stret income seourity terms the Prime Minister's promise will
have been delivered. Secondly# Julian Disney, who was then the
Chairman of the Australian Council of social Services, he said
that it was a truly remarkable achievement first to have set
and then to have achieved the payments for children in low income
/ 12
-12-
families. ThLrd, the Australian jnstLtute of Family Studies who
said, in these ways the benchmarks not by the Government have
been met, and just look what thoeo benchmarks were and what's
involved. We in diseuesLon with the welfare sector, said now how
@ re we going to deliver on this promLee, what's the best way of
delivering on this promise that there'll be no financial need for
a child to live in poverty, and we agreed with them that we
should set benchmarks as a percentage of the married pension
rate. That wan fifteen percent of no pension rate, for a child
under thirteen and twenty percent for a chLld between thirteen
and fifteen. Translated into money terms, that is $ 24.15 a week
for a child under thirteen and $ 35.25 a week for a child between
thirteen and fifteen. now lot me gLve you what that means in
aggregate termse. zt means that this year we're paying over two
billLon dollars, a year, to ahLldren of low-income families to
deliver on that promise, which as X say, all the organisations
say has been done. It means, to give you the example that Z used
earlier in this program, that for a low-income famLly with one
income, $ 320 a week, with three kids that family is getting $ 110
a weGk tax-free@.,
( END O TAPE) a soo/ 13
-13-
PM: .,,... poverty because you the disastrous situations of
gamily break-ups, ohildren away from home, and that's why the
state governments, local government and the welfare sector has
responded positively to my calling them together as I did, to say
alright now, we've delivered on that part of the promise but what
we've now all got to do together is to make sure that we deliver,
all of Us, the servioee at the points of need and that's what's
been done.
KRs Trees. Con just ask a follow-up question to that? Having
met the financial target, there are then non-finanoial or social
wage targets to be met and the Brotherhood of St Laurence and
ACOSS have put together a package of proposals they call the
Promise the Children package. That includes things like, have a
CIPACt have a children's planning advisory council, if it's
important enough to do it for the economy it's important enough
to do it for children, ratifying the un convention on the rights
of the child, it's a package of things. Have you seen that
package? Have you got a response to it?
PRi We've asked them to meet with us. We've already had a
meeting# not only with the Brotherhood of 8t Laurence but with
the Australian Council of Social Service, and we are in constant
communication, we* ve undertaken that when we're re-lected that
we'll go on with this dialogue. We've also got to do it with
state governments and local governments because so much of the
delivery of relevant services are in the hands of the state and
local governments a. veil. go yes, the answer is we're going to
continue in dialogue, not only with the Drotherhood but with
hCOSS and the other tiers of government, to see that we
delivered. You also know that in the campaign policy speech t
also committed my incoming government to additional programs to
meet the particular problems of the outer-suburban areas and the
smaller towns, because part of the problem Kel, is that a lot of
people in these outer suburban areas or remote towns don't have
the degree of access to services and knowledge about services
that others do so I've committed a fair bit more money to dealing
with the problem in that way. Now the trees. One billion trees.
A very, very snide attempt by some people to say that what Hawke
promised was that he was going to plant one billion trees and we
were all going to go around and plant the trees.
KRi When they'd all been numbered, as they were, yes.
-14-
VMt Yes, what I said at the time was tble, That that billion
would come in two ways. There would be four hundred million, by a
Community planting program, and six hundred million by direct
seeding and regeneration, where we would conduct programs which
are being done now, to accelerate that aspect of Lt, and that we
would being the community into the four hundred million part of
it* Together there'd be a billion ( dollars). Nov I didn't may
that Bob Hawke in Canberra would supervise this. We oat down
with GreenLng Australia, the relevant organisatLon. Greening
Australia has from day one been involved in the concept and in
implementation and Greening AustralLa the body whLh the best
equipped# the most relevant, has expressed a) it's satisfaction
with the concept and b) the way its implementation is going. And
may I say, z want to thank the community groups around Australia
who have responded to put such enormous enthusiasm to this
imaginative and relevant concept.
XRt Look I know you've got a press conference at ten. Could you
stay with us for a few more minutes?
Pis hbout three?
ARS Okay, this is Scott from Newoastle.
GCOTTo Good mornLng Kr Hawke.
PH. Good morning Soott.
IGOTT beat of luck tomorrow.
P~ e Thanks mate.
8COTTI I'm a final year degree student at Newcastle UnLvarsity
and I'm living on Austudy. My question is, many of my colleagues
have the problem where we are working very hard whereas people on
unemployment benefite are receiving probably sometimes twentyfive*
thirty dollars a week more than we are. t appreciate that
you've created more Rustudy places otcetera, but with the change
in emphasis towards retraining, as opposed to unemployment
benefite do you plan to do anything towards making people who
are studying receive at least the same income an people on
unemployment benefits? We have the same personal needs, we have
the needs to buy text books etcetera. The psycholgical
disadvantage L really, really straining on many people.
-IS&
PHI scott, lot mne oak* point, When we came to office, the gap
the wrong way between unemploymenft benefits . and student
allowances was crazy. it was just, in just about every category
of age group, it was worth more for a young person to go on
unemployment benefits than to study* Now we have changed that
around and further in this, there's another part of our
deoisionsp earlier this year, where in regard to another age
category we finally closed that gap, because it was untenable.
that you should have that sort of area of differential. Z ea
it was sifoply, in Australia, generally speaking. generallyo
everywhere in all sorts of categories, it was worth more for a
young person to go on the dole than to go into education. so
what we've done is to close that gap# massively increse
education allowances. But the other part of it Scott, is that
what we're doing is now we're virtually abolishing the concept og
unemployment benefit, vnder my 0overnmentr the concept of
unemployment benefit will disappear and the requirement will bet
it a person isn't in a Job# isn't in the education system and
isn't already in a training scheme, then that person will have to
undergo a training scheme. In' their first nine months there'll
be a job search allowance and that wil, be strictly supervised
to make sure that they are searching for a job# and then after
that they have no right to an unemployment benefit, they only
have a right to get an amount of money which will sustain them in
one or other of a training scheme,
XRI Quick final question and than we'll release you and you can
dash off to your press conference. Rugh Stretton said on thin
program this week, that one of the reasons why home mortgage
interest rates are so high as they are# one of the principle
reasons is because of the deregulation of the financial and
banking sector. And he argues that if we want our children to
have the choice of housing we had, at reasonable interest rate.#
the banking and financial sector needs to be selectively roregulated.
Do you have any response to that?
Flit Yes, I do. Hugh is, by philosophical dispositione more ot a
regulator than not and I respect Hugh, he's been a great
contributor to thinking in this country. I haven't always agreed
with all of his thoughts but I respect Hugh Streeton as a
stimulator of thinking in others. On this point I don't agree
with Hugh. We had a situation bef-ore, where under a regulated
system and with Just a limited number ot banke, what they did
you didn't have to choke off people by raising interest
rates, they'd just stop the supply of money. X guess the tet,
of between the two systems, is simply this, that in the period of
my Government there's been of per annum cents, ten percent per
/ is
-Ifannum
more houses built under lay Government than there were under
my predecessors where they had a totally regulated system. That
doesn't mean however, that you simply think that you end your
obligation and committment to the community in regard to housing
by simply deregulating the financial sector. x hope Hugh would
take account of the fact that in the area of welfare housing,
including just in the last year, we made a very significant
decision which increased the amount of money from just over sevenl
hundred million dollars a year to over eight billion# under the
Commonwealth State Housing agreement, which is going to make more
funds available. And this is a result of decision, not leaving
Lt to the market but hers is a specific decision by government in
consultation with the states to make much more money available to
the states to spend on housing or the relevantly lose fortunate
section of the community. Of course at the same time, int the
earlier stage of out Government, we brought in the first home
owner scheme which now over the duration of my Governmient has
meant that some three hundred and forty thousand people and
families have been put into homes that otherwise would not have
done it. go I think Hugh's got to understand that if you're
talking about housing and government policy, that what you do La
regard to the banks and the deregulation of the financial sector
Lu but one part of a comprehensive approach to housing.
KR: lob-thanks for being with us this morning.
1K: Thank you very much gel.