Fax from PRIME MINISTER
13 February 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
PRESS CONFERENCE PARLIAMENT HOUSE
E 0
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to announce that I've appointed Senator Chris Ellison, a
Senator from Western Australia, to replace Senator Bob Woods as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Health, Senator Ellison will also assist the Attorney-
General and Minister for Justice in certain selected areas.
He's been a Western Australian Senator since 1993. He played a particularly active
role on behalf of the then opposition in the debate on the then government's native title
legislation in ' 93. 1 think he'll do a very energetic and effective way a job in his new
responsibilities and I congratulate him.
Can I also say that the employment figures today are pleasing although in accordance
with my past practice, irrespective of how the figures have gone, I'm not reading too
much into one months' figures, but it does mean that we've had an employment
growth of 158 000 since the election of the Government in March of last year. The
unemployment rate remains the same because the participation rate has risen. But a
rise predominantly in the female part-time area of close to 35 000 jobs in the month is
pleasing. I don't want to put it any higher than that. But it is pleasing and obviously
more welcome than if the trends had been or the direction had been otherwise. And I
think the trend in the employment growth and unemployment is the trend growth
gives some cause for optimism but I have never sought to overstate these figures and I
don't overstate them today. But it's fair to note the rise and to note that that is a
pleasing development.
They're the only two specific announcements that I have to make but you may want to
ask me a question or two and I'd be very happy in my normal fashion to try and
respond. Fa rom13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 1
Fax from QUESTION: Prime Minister, on the employment rates other than what you've said, unemployment
is actually 21 800 higher than the same month last year, how soon do you expect your
Government's policies to actually start flowing through to reducing that amount?
PRIM MINISTER:
I can't and I won't try to put a month or a particular time on it. I am not going to
make predictions about particular targets by particular times. I repeat what I've said
before and that is that we will muster atom of every policy activity towards improving
the employment situation. There's been strong evidence of that this week in relation to
the announcement on the ' work for the dole' approach. But I'm simply not going to
start talking about things being achieved by particular months. And there's always
deficiencies in comparing a particular month with another particular month just as
there are deficiencies and ill wisdom in if you have a good month saying, you know,
eureka! the problem has been solved. I mean, that is simply not something P'm going
to do. It remains a very difficult challenge. It will take time. The former government
had 13 years and left us with 8.5% unemployment having pushed it to a postdepression
high in the early 1990s. We have had just on a year, and I'll say again and
I'T keep on saying it, that it really is absurd and impertinent and lacking in any
credibility for a government that had 13 years to fix a problem and leaves it in large
dimensions, then thumping the table after a year saying how outrageous and how
shocking, you haven't fixed the problem.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, if these figures are pleasing you'd have to admit that most of the
figures beforehand have been less than pleasing, could you therefore say that you've
now reached a turning point on employment?
PRIME MUISTER:
No, I'm not prepared to say that. All I'm prepared say is soberly and sensibly
comment as accurately as I can on the monthly figures as they come out. But this is
too serious a problem to sort of became the captive of fancy rhetoric. It is too serious
a problem for that. And you all know that these figures can bounce around. All I can
do is react to a given set of figures. If they're disappointing, they're disappointing. If
they're pleasing, they're pleasing. But I'm not going to get into this game of saying
well, you know, we've just turned the corner or this or that. I don't know. All I can
say is that we've had a growth in employment of 158 000 since I became Prime
Minister. Now, I hope that growth goes on. I really do. And we will do everything
we humanly can to ensure that that growth does go on. But I can't be certain it will
but I hope that the policy changes that we made in the area of industrial relations,
many of which incidentally won't begi to bite, until the I1st of March they won't come
in to force. The workplace agreement of the JR legislation doesn't come in to force
until the 1st of March. The unfair dismissal law was only changed from the 1st of
January. Many other provisions of the Act have only been in operation with the other
provisions since the 1st of January. And some of the measures we've taken to help
Fa rom13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 2
Fax from small business. The very, very generous and I think major incentive involved in the
capital gains tax change doesn't start until the I1st of July. So I don't want to overstate
it and I won't and it should not become the captive of fancy, transient, political
rhetoric. QUESTION: Prime Minister, did John Sharp mislead the Parliament yesterday when he said that he
hadn't discussed consultancies with any member of the CASA board?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think you could well be referring to Mrs Pollock. I think that's about the worst kept
secret around this building today that Lindsay Tanner is going to raise Mrs Pollock.
QUFSTION: John Sharp admitted on AM this morning that he had discussed consultancies.
PRIME MINSTER:
I don't believe he misled the Parliament. I think the implication behind that suggestion
is that he had promised consultancies to people whereas the situation as explained to
me by John, and I have no reason at all to disbelieve it, is that what John did was to say
to the lady in question that if you were to resign that would not of itself disentitle you
to consultancy work with the Government in future. It is my understanding, based on
what he's told me, that she had in fact done consultancy work before. So what he was
really doing was not, as I understand it, was not saying, look, if you resign I'll
guarantee you consultancies. What he was saying was that if you resign that will not
prevent you on the merits getting consultancy work in the future. And against the
background of her having had it in the past, which I am told was the situation, that is a
very different thing.
QUESTION: Can you explain exactly what the rules of this Government are in relation to offering
one job on the basis of resignation from another?
PRIMIE MNISTER:
Well the rules are rules of probity and commonsense and this is not an argument about
probity. This is an argument about safe skies. We have never disguised the fact, nor
has Sharp ever disguised the fact that he wanted a new board because of many of the
things that have happened under the former Government, the obvious lack of aviation
experience of the existing board, and can I say, I think John Sharp has adopted a
commonsense approach. If you want a better board you are a new government isn't
it sensible to talk to people? I mean, he has been criticised for trying to do the right
and courteous thing by a particular person and not in any way to call into doubt or
question her credentials in other areas and I don't think he's lacked any probity at all
Fafrri13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 3
Fax from and you say, what are the rules? You act with probity but you also act with
commnonsense and the commonsense of this situation is that his behaviour, so far from
being suspicious or tawdry or corrupt, his behaviour has been the commnonsense
behaviour of a Minister endeavouring to implement a policy change in an area where
there was disaster and failure and tragic loss of life under the former Government. I
mean, this is about safer skies, not about corruption. If you want safer skies you will
understand that what John Sharp has endeavoured to do is absolutely right.
QUESTION: Mr Howard, when you were elected you promised very exacting standards of
Government. In the light of the ( inaudible) this week can you be said to be delivering
on those promises?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think for a moment the developments this week have compromised that
promnise at all. I mean, there has been no lack of honesty or candour or probity by
Sharp or by Henron, In relation to the Woods matter, Senator Woods of course is
resigning from the Parliament. The criticism that was made of me in relation to the
Woods matter was that I had not recalled, which I hadn't and which I acknowledge I
had not recalled a reference to it made by the Attorney General five or six months ago.
Now you can choose to believe or disbelieve that and I know that some of you have
written in disbelief of it. I know that. Well can I say that your disbelief is not well
founded. I didn't remember that conversation when I made, when I gave the answer to
Ray Martin and that's regrettable but I didn't. And when you bear in mind that I had
in the space of two weeks, I had had a conversation with Bob Woods, the first
convseration I had had with him abotu the issue and a conversation on the same day I
think within the space of half an hour perhaps, or an hour with the Attorney General
about the same matter and that I had subsequently had a discussion with Bob Woods
when parliament resumed only last week in which he told me he was going to resign
and fujrther spoke about this matter. I think it is understandable perhaps the rather
transient reference to it five or six months earlier had escaped mny attention but that
doesn't represent any lack of probity or dishonesty unless you are claiming that what I
should have done when I was told by the Attorney General in, I think it was August or
September of last year, or perhaps a little later. The exact date we haven't been able to
fix, unless you are saying to me I should have dragged the bloke in and said look, the
federal cappers are going to have a look at you, thereby warning him, and I am going
to stand you down while they're having a look at you. Now that has been put to me.
Can I say I don't accept that. Now those who have put that will continue to put it but
I don't believe that suggests a lack of probity, You can criticise the fact that I didn't
remember it. Go ahead and do that but don't suggest that that is a lack of standards
because standards go to things such as probity and honesty. They don't suggest that
you will, on every single occasion have an immaculately infallible memory. I don't.
QUESTION:
But Prime Minister yesterday you told the Parliament that your Department informed
you that the President of the Senate supported the salaly arrangement for Senator
Farrri13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 4
Fax from Colston but the correspondence would suggest otherwise, that the President of the
Senate didn't support that.
PRIME MINISTR:
Well my Department did say to me that Senator Reid supports his views in principle
but is seeking supplementation for the increased salary. Now the correspondence to
which you are referring, I think, I can't be certain because you're referring to it, the
correspondence is correspondence that passed between Senator Reid and Senator
Colston before Senator Colston wrote to me and on the information that's been given
to me by my Department, Senator Reid did not allude to that correspondence when she
wrote to me. So when I made that statement to the Parliament, and I repeat it to you
today, I was relying on what I had been told by my Department.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, when did Mr Sharp refer to ( inaudible) in the discussions between Mr
Sharp and yourself; when did Mr Sharp refer to the ( inaudible) situation?
PRIM MINISTER:
No it was mentioned by him yesterday. Exactly when within the half an hour I can't
tell you but, and we would have, it would have been discussed again today.
QUESTION: Why didn't you refer that matter to the Chief General Counsel?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because I was satisfied that the explanation that he gave me did not represent any valid
grounds for doing that,
QUESTION: Mr Howard, last night Justice Bishop had a different explanation of the..
PRIME MINISTER:
He was pretty busy on the phone I gather.
QUESTION: No, not really...
PRIME MINISTER;
Yes he was. Fa om13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg:
Fax from PIM3E MINISTER:
What he said was that if Mr Sharp had said to Dr Pollock if she was not on the board
there could be consultancy work with..
PRIME MINISTER;
Look, I am not going to respond to something that is put by somebody who wasn't
involved as a principle in the original conversation. I've been in this game long enough
not to get into that. I can only repeat to you the explanation that John Sharp who was
a principle in the original conversation, Bill Fisher wasn't a principle in the original
conversation, I can only repeat what John Sharp has said to me and I have no reason at
all to doubt what he has told me. I have always found John Sharp to be both
competent and candid.
] PRIME MINISTER:
That problem with the probity and honesty of the arrangement with Ms Hollows, why
is it that Senator Herron chose to read all but three lines of the letter yesterday to the
Senate, the three likes being those relating to John Sharp? ( Inaudible) giving people
fuill information about what was going on?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you will have to ask him that. I mean I can't put myself in, much in all as I
respect and have affection for my colleagues, I cannot put my mind, put myself inside
the mind of each and every one of my colleagues. I really think that is verging on the
pedantic. Well, you'll have to ask him. I don't know.
QUESTION: ( inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm sorry Laura. The letter was tabled by me. I mean, if we'd held the letter
back you might have a point but I mean, I tabled the letter yesterday with Burmnester's
opinion.
QUESTION: Prime Minister do you believe that Gabi Hollows representing, membership of the
CASA board as a consumer representative is somehow compromising air safety in
Australia? PRIME AMISTER:
I'm not going to personalise the comments I have made because I had quite a regard
for Gabi Hollows but the fact is that of all of the people on the board, Molloy is the
Faro m13/' 82/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 6
Fax from only person who has any civil aviation background or experience and given the history
of it and given that one of the reports that camne out last year was into the Seaview
Report in fact cited lack of effective supervision as one of the causes of the problems
in the industry. I think Sharp's case is very powerfu~ l, I mean, Gabi Hollows is
associated with many great causes in Australia and she obviously has expertise in many
areas and that was clearly in the minds of both John Sharp and Senator Herron and..
QUESTION: Do you understand her seeing that letter as an inducement to step down from the
CASA board?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if it were, why was there a gap of 11 months between the date the letter was
written, or not 11, perhaps 10 months, and I mean, that letter was written in May and
this matter has arisen in the last couple of days. Now if in fact people felt that his
behaviour had been so outrageous I mean, I just make that point.
QUESTION: Mrs Hollows thought that Mr Sharp had not acted appropriately, that she was upset
after the conversation. Apparently that's what she's put in, I understand that's what
she's put in the letter or a fax to you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I'm not going to talk about I mean, that's her letter to me. I don't, I mean,
what she does with that letter is her business.
QUESTIONShould you not have referred that letter and her view and her concerns to legal counsel
before clearing your Ministers?
PRIME ] MINISTER:
That particular letter was a communication from Gabi Hollows to me and I don't think
it really had anything, it didn't bear upon the allegation. You see the question that was
asked of me was asked of me by Tanner and he said : Herron delivers this letter.
Doesn't this represent a breach of the Crimes Act?
QUESTION: Why didn't you report to the Chief Counsel the matter surrounding the letter?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they were in the sense John that the material that was before the Chief General
Fa rom13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 7
Fax from Counsel included the answers that had been given by both Herron and by Sharp in the
House. QUESTION: ( inaudible) if she was not on the board there could be consultancy work.. ( inaudible)...
PREME MINISTER:
The allegation was that the letter represented an inducement. That was the allegation
and that is the allegation that I've had investigated and I am satisfied that there was no
attempt to in any way limit the investigation.
QIJEST[ ON:
You talk about commonsense, and then you talked about the safety problems... do you
believe Gabi Hollows compromises air safety ( inaudible). Are you saying that..
PRIME MNISTER:
What P'm saying to...
QUESTION: on a slightly case by case basis..
PREWME MINISTER:
No I'm just, no I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that people ought to have a
commonsense approach to these things. This has got nothing to do with bribery or
corruption or dishonest dealing. You have a plain, simple situation where John Sharp
wanted to bring about a change in the personnel of the board, not because he had
anything against Gabi Hollows. You have a Chairman of the Board who obviously,
you know, is an old Labor warrior, I don't criticise him for that but I mean, let's just
exercise a little bit of commonsense about it. He wanted these changes to the board.
He recognised that Gabi Hollows had skills in other areas. He doesn't want to do her
in the eye but he wants to bring about a change in the composition of the Board
because there has been a long record of failures in this area. I mean, you've had two
major disasters, absolute disasters in this area and you have an inquiry at the end of last
year that underlines that point and he set out to achieve the objectives of the
Government and I think in the circumstances, I mean if you want to, you can have a
pedantic, you know, view about it, or you can take the view that there has been, which
I do, there has been absolutely no lack of probity. I mean, if he had sort of suggested
that somebody occupy a position to which that person had no dernostrable skills. After
all, this lady is associated with the Hollows Foundation. She has a clear interest in
matters relating to Aboriginal health. If the proposal had involved something in which
she had no demonstrable skills, I think that would have been an entirely different
matter. Fa rom13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 8
Fax from QUESTION: . this principle that members of a board should have expertise in the area, hands on
experience in the area that they are governing...
PRIME MINISTER:
It depends on the circumstances. Where you've had an appalling record of death and
disaster and safety falure I think you ought to apply more rigidly than you might in
areas where there hasn't been demonstrable failure.
QUESTION. Prime Minister, when Senator Colston got in contact with your office seeking the pay
rise, did it then follow any discussions among your staff or perhaps even involving you
that it might be warranted to not necessarily make the Senator happy but to make sure
he wasn't unhappy given the text of the Telstra vote?
PRIME MINISTER:
I had a discussion with my Chief of Staff about it. I had a brief discussion with her
about it. I had to approve it under the MOPS Act that is why I was involved. And, I
said that she raised it with me and she briefly discussed it. I had a minute from my
Department about it and the minute from my Department recommended that I approve
it. But the cost of it be sought within the Senate's budget.
QUESTION: . at no stage was the possibility of Senator Colston's vote raised in your discussion
with your Chief of Staff or anybody...
PRIME MINSTER:
I don't remember that being discussed. Btur in mind it was a couple of weeks actually
before the final vote on Teistra.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, you told the Partyroom on Tuesday that you wanted..
PRIME MINISTER:
Did I?
QUESTIONto focus on the three core issues ( inaudible)... the three core issues of
unemployment. You spent all this week fending off questions on a number of other
issues. Fa om13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 9
Fax from PRIME MINISTER:
Well that happens.
QUESTION: I mean, does it worry you though?
PRIE AMSTER;
No. QUESTION:
Mr Howard, given the controversy surrounding the CASA Board do you think that Mr
Sharp in terms of any appointments to that Board should ensure that he does not want
any people who may have done work or supported the Coalition during the election
campaign and/ or people he has close mix to, personal mix to?
PRIME MNISTER:
It depends on their ability and their qualifications. I mean, my well I know who
you're talking about and why didn't you name him? Well Dick Smith has an enormous
amount of skill in this area, an enormous amount of skill in this area, but who gets
appointed to the Board is a matter for the Cabinet to decide when there are vacancies.
But let me state my policy I don't believe that a close personal association or a clear
identified public support for one side of politics is of itself a disqualification. It
depends on whether you have merit in its own right for the particular position. I mean,
surely nobody criticised our appointment of Donald McDonald as Chairman of the
ABC. He had clear and evident skills for the job, Of course he's a close personal
friend of mine. I didn't criticise many of the appointments made by the former
government where they were clearly made on ability. I didn't criticise the appointment
of people like Michael McHugh despite his clear association to the High Court of
Australia. I didn't criticise the appointment of Doug McClelland as High Commission
to London. I have left in place people like Kerry Sibraa and Neal fllewett and Oceoff
Walsh in their respective positions since we took office. You've always got to look at
whether the person has merit. I mean, if we're ever to get into a situation where you
can never appoint somebody who's supported the Coalition it's a question of whether
they can cut the mustard in the job, that's got to be the principle. If they can't cut the
mustard in the job it clearly is a job for the boy or the girl, but where they can identify
particular skills I think it's utterly justified.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, Justice Fisher was working the pretty busily last night. Do you
think he's behind a campaign to trip Mr Sharp up? Fa rom13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: to
Fax from PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think he's, sort of, trying to help him. And I think there's been a far
amount of beating of the tribal drum on it. But look, I understand that. I've known
Bill Fisher for a long time. But I mecan, let's just understand where Bill's coming from
he does have strong Labor affliation, I don't criticise him for that. I've enjoyed his
company at social occasions on a number of times in the past. I mean, once again
please exercise some common sense about this and the common sense of it is that
you've got a new Minister with a clear mandate to fix up a disaster area inherited from
the former government, you have a board presided over by somebody and with the
exception of one they have no experience at all in aviation safety. Sharp sets about
trying to bring about changes in the Board and one of those approaches is to say to a
very respected person who doesn't have civil aviation experience but has a lot of other
experience in another area hey we'd like you to help in this as part of the discussion
we'd like you to help in this other area, Now in my book that is a common sense
vigorous action on behalf of the Minister and it's as far away from shonky behaviour as
you can possibly get.
QUESTION: Given the weight that you were placing on established guides given that the Board
members say that there is now no way that they will resign, they have six months to go
and they chose longer, are you going to act to try to remove them from the Board?
PRIME MINISTER;
Look, I will act in accordance with the law. The law confers upon them under the
relevant Act certain entitlements and it also has certain provisions in relation to the
circumstances in which they may cease to be members of the Board. I mean, I will
observe the law. I can do no more than that. Obviously the Chairman is encouraging
them not to resign. I mean, he's made that perfectly clear in discussions with the
Minister. I mean, you've got a clear case here where the Chairman appointed by the
former government has dug his heels in and is encouraging everybody else not to go
and the Minister has tried to bring about changes and we're talking about events that
happened in May of last year.
QUESTION: try and explain Mr Sharp's memory loss in the Parliament yesterday?
PRIM1E MINISTER:
What memory loss is that?
QUESTION: Well he was asked on a couple of occasions about other offers he may have made to
CASA Board members... Fa om13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 11
Fax from PRIME MINISTER:
Well you'd have to ask him that, Mike.
QUESTION; Surely there comes a point doesn't there of which memory loss of his and now it's
misleading the Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well are you alleging that be did?
QUESTION: I'm not alleging that at all, I'm asking..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't believe he has, but as for his own particular recollections he's obviously
better qualified to answer to those than anybody else.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, were you relying on the wrong legal advice yesterday when you told
Parliament that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs was not
in a position to authorise the construction of the Hindmarsh Island bridge?
PRIME MINISTER.
NO, QUESTION:
Given that in November Mr Burrnester and Senator Herron both said in estimates
committees that that was the case-..
PRIME MINSTER:
Well the Burmester opinion of that time has been rather selectively quoted. The advice
that the Government had and the advice on which the decision to proceed with the
legislation was based was advice because there was an outstanding application. it was
necessary for the Government to appoint another reporter and if you appoint another
reporter you've then got to have another report and the danger that we were advised
could arise was that if we went ahead with the construction of the bridge there could
be an application made to the court for an injunction to stop the bridge going ahead
and the court could then turn around and say to us, you've got to go back and deal
with the outstanding application. So not only would you still have the cost of the
report but you could have the additional delay and the additional costs of the court
Farxft 13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 12
Fax from application. Now that was the legal advice that was available on which we acted.
That was the legal advice to which I referred.
QUESTION:
Mr Howard, do you think Mr Fisher's behaviour in terms of asking for members of
the CASA Board going to resign, do you think that My Fisher's behaviour is
appropriate given government policy?
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand where he's comning from. I'm not going to say it's appropriate or
inappropriate. I just want I made those comments to put the whole thing into
context. I'm not going to say it's inappropriate.
QUESTION:
Is it appropriate?
PRIME MINISTE&
I beg your pardon?
QUESTION: Is it appropriate?
PRI[ ME MIINISTER:
Well I've given you an answer to that. You're asking me I'm not going to say
whether it is appropriate or inappropriate, that is a matter for him.
QUESTION: Have you sought to talk to Giabi Hollows to...
PRIME MINISTER:
No. Well I did, hang on, we tried to reach her yesterday before either I or somebody
on my staff, I didn't, somebody on my staff tried to reach her yesterday. I wanted to
let her know that I was going to table the Herron letter. But that was the only reason
I thought I owed her that courtesy. John Herron, in fact, sent her a fax indicating that
we were going to do that. But I haven't, I mean, I will reply to her letter but I haven't
tried you don't think I would have tried to ring her and talk about the matter? I think
I would have copped a question or two if I had have done that. Fafrft13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 13
Fax from QUESTION, Have you* taken steps to ensure that all MWs are abiding by travel and other
parliamentary entitlements?
] PRIME MINISTER:
Well I th~ ink my colleagues are aware at all times that I expect them to be above board
in relation to those matters and can I remind you Michael that there has been, there has
been no concrete evidence that anybody is other than above board.
QUESTION: Except.. PRIE MINISTEIL
Well I've answered the question. I can't I mean, they are constantly aware from me
that they have to be very careful about these things and I am I've certainly reminded
my colleagues from time to time of the need to do that.
QUESTION: When do you expect the police investigation to end and why has it taken so long?
PRIE MNISTER:
Well, I don't know. I would like these police investigations to come to an end, yes.
But I think that's a matter that really...
QUESTION: Have you made any inquiries why it would take 6 months...
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, well, I have asked the Attorney General to inquire of the Australian Federal
Police as to when the investigations will be completed, but I asked him to do so with
out in any way conveying any suggestion that we wanted other than a completely
thorough investigation and I just hope that they will be complete.
QUESTION: Has there been any reply?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the reply has been generally to the effect that they hope they will be completed
soon, and I can't... Fa om13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 PS: 14
Fax from QUESTION: It seems a long time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think it is too, Michelle, but I've got to be careful here. If I say anymore than
that somebody midght say I'm putting pressure on the Federal Police. I mean that quite
seriously. I mean, it is a longstanding practice that Prime Ministers, Attorneys-General
and other responsible Ministers don't give running commentaries on security
intelligence and police matters. Now, I would, obviously I would like these inquiries
to be completed, whatever the outcome is, and I have raised that matter with the
Attorney-General but I say here on the public record, not in the context of wanting the
police in anyway to truncate or shorten or cut across proper lines of inquiry.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any other inquiries into other M~ s apart from Senator Woods and
MAr Cobb?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've been asked that before. I don't want you to get excited about the answer
that I'm about to give but I can't really observe the code of neither confirming or
denying if I try and answer that.
QUESTION: On the work for the dole scheme, you said the other day that it may be extended to up
to 30 year olds.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, but I think in the early stages that's unlikely but that's the sort of ceiling.., what I
was endeavouring to convey with that was that we obviously don't expect people in
the older age bracket I still regard 30 as extremely young people in the older age
bracket to sort of feel as though they are going to be drawn into it...
QUESTION: Given the fact that there are differing rates of unemployment benefit for people if they
live at home or away from home. If they were doing the same job, somebody living
away from home would be required to work longer hours than somebody living at
home... PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that could arise, that could arise, but the principle will be strictly observed that
Fa rom13/ 02/ 97 14: S6 Pg:
Fax from you won't be required to work more than the number of hours that will work out your
dole payment.
QUESTION:
How close to the mark was Gareth Evans when he described the work for the dole
scheme as the Bob Woods' memorial rock painting programme?
PRIME MINISTER:~
Well given that we started discussing it in December of last year in the Employment
Commrittee, he was a country mile away.
QUESTION;
Why didn't you announce it in the election if you were so confident it was such a
popular policy?
PRIM MIINISTER:
We didn't announce it in the election campaign because we had a determination during
that campaign to focus on particular policies and we did, and I think we've been over
the question of what was said about it in the campaign. The policy documents were
silent on the issue. They didn't say, the two policy documents, and I've had them
checked again, the two policy documents the one :' P~ athways to Jobs" and the other
the Social Security policy, those two documents were silent on the subject. Now, it is
true as I acknowledge that in response to the questionnaires certain words were used
and I've explained the circumstances of that, and people have taken a bit of a swipe at
that which is fair enough, but the fact remains that my own views on the thing, my own
personal views are that conceptually it is not something that I've opposed but I've
always sort of understood that it is something that would need to be piloted, it would
need to be trialed and I think the silence in the two documents on the subject was a fair
reflection. Could I also add Malcolm that the popularity of it is not the driving force behind my
support of it. I mean, I never mind, I'll be quite honest with you, I never mind if a
policy I support on policy grounds always turns out to be popular, I mean, all Prime
Ministers like their announcements to be popular and I wouldn't pretend that I'm any
different to any other Prime Minister in that sense but..
QUESTION: Do you think there might be a risk that it was misconstrued by the Labor Party...
PRIE MINSTER:
Well, can I say it was not something that was really talked about very much in the lead
up to the campaign and that perhaps explains the fact that certain statements were
made in that material prepared the Party. Fa om13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 16
Fax from QUESTION: . so convinced of what the policy was, especially when they have said that their
statement was made in conjunction with the Minister's office. They were obviously
quite unequivocal about the position of the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Michelle, that's already been.. I can't really add to anything that's been said on
that and you will understand better than most that in the heat and burden of an election
campaign there are quite literally hundreds of questions that pour into campaign
headquarters and that particular question was not referred to me or to my office.
QUESTION: ( inaudible)...
PRIMEf MINISTER:
It was, I know that, and..
QUESTION: an unequivocal statement by the Party. Now surely they would not get something so
simple, so confused?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they obviously took certain steps in preparing that answer and those steps have
been explained. I can only repeat what I have said to Malcolm that it was not in either
of the policy documents either way that we supported it or we opposed it.
QUESTION:
But from what you've said today Mr Howard it was clearly in your minds that this was
a possibility because you've said that you only wanted to focus on some policy issues
in the campaign which implies that this was something that was in your mind, you
didn't wish to focus on it during the campaign?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't I think I've said to you before and I've said publicly before that I had no
recollection of having personally ruled it out during the election campaign and I've
asked my office to go through all of the transcripts of what I said and I have been not
able to find any reference to it having been ruled out and that was the basis of the
statement that I made on the Sunday programme. Fa om13/ 02/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 17
Fax from QUESTION: In that search have you found any references to you not ruling it out I think it was
Sunday...
PRIME MMNISTER:
Well, when you say you're careflul not to rule something out... I mean, I haven't found
any reference to it being ruled out...
QUESTION: But you made a point of saying that you during the campaign made a point of not
ruling it out. Given the circumstance...
PRIME MINISTER:
That was a description of my state of mind.
QUESTION: If the Commonwealth Bank can cut home loan interest rates, do you think they should
be cutting rates for small business and credit cards?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I wish they could but of course the competitive conditions in that area are
nowhere near as great because except for the rather small intervention of Aussie Home
loans announced earlier this week you don't have the same amount of competition in
the small business area as you have in the home loan area. But I would hope that in
the fuzllness of time there would be more competition. I'll take one more question.
QUESTION: Would say Mr Howard that the past two weeks have been the Government's worst
since the election and what share of the blame do you carry?
PRIME MINISTER:
Randall, after my career you call the last two weeks difficult!
ends Fafrn, 13/ 62/ 97 14: 56 Pg: 18