29 May 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON. JOHN HOWARD MP
RADIO INTERVIEW WITH JOHN STANLEY RADIO 2UE
E O E
STANLEY:
Mr Howard, good afternoon.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good afternoon John.
STANLEY: Tell me first of all, this task force, what will it aim to achieve?
STANLEY: It was a recommendation to me by Maurie Rudd and the delegation of steel workers, really to be
made up of community representatives to advise me directly on some of the social as well as
economic implications with a greater emphasis on the social of what is occurring in Newcastle. It
was at very useful meeting. I didn't make any foolish promises that I wasn't able, I wouldn't be
able to deliver. I will go to Newcastle, probably at the end of June or early in July. A number of
my Ministers have already been there and we are of course matching the 10 million that the
NSWA Government has made available. I guess one of the most interesting things that Mr Rudd
said to me was that the steel workers of Newcastle and their families were not interested in this
issue becoming a political slanging match. I think that's right. I am not going to spend the next
few months berating the former Government for the situation and I think what the people of
Newcastle are interested in is practical assistance not false expectations. I can't wave a magic
wandI but they did put a number of ideas to me and I have undertaken to examine all of those
ideas to try and get some further information and to come back to them.
Newcastle is in a sense a metaphor for some of the problems we face in Australia as we go
through this restructuring phase and the impact of the globalised world economy and the
difficulties of areas of manufacturing industry and we have to work through what solutions we
can find and I am very conscious of the social as well as the economic implications of what is
happening in Newcastle and indeed what is happening around Australia in other industrial areas.
STANLEY: So do you believe in globalising our economy and restructuring our economy we've actually gone
too Par, that we've actually gone ahead of some of our trading partners?
PRIME MINISTER:
John, I don't think you have any alternative. We are a people of 18 million and if we are to
sur\, ive, we have to trade, we have to sell, we have to find buyers for our products, we have to
expose ourselves to competitive forces. We have to do it in a clever, intelligent way and whoever
is in power in New South Wales or in Canberra is dealing with certain forces that we have to take
account of Now there is always a balance to be struck and it's no good just sort of uttering
phrases like industry policy and so forth without having a clear idea what you mean by that.
Obviously, if you run the economy well and you have low inflation and falling interest rates you
encourage investment. We've had some very good investment figures over the past few days and
many features of the Australian economy are very strong.
STANLEY: Isn't there a perception abroad though that we've stripped away protection from our Industries
and it s no longer a level playing field, that many of our competitors still have their tariffs up
much higher than ours and that we're allowing people with much lower wage rates to flood the
country with cheap products that are competing with those that we're making?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's the sort of statement that is sort of half right and half wrong. It is true that there are some
countries whose wage levels are so low that we can't in wage terms compete with them. That's
right. On the other hand, there are a lot of benefits of opening up our economy. We have been
able to sell things into Asian markets that we wouldn't have dreamt of selling before. I mean, you
have had industries like the dairy industry that has lost all its protection yet has now booming
exports in a situation that people wouldn't have dreamt of ten years ago. I mean, I can remember
as a member of the Fraser Government the dairy industry seemed to be in intensive care the whole
time ihat we were in Government for seven years, yet now, without protection and without the
suppo~ rt of old subsidised policies it's now quite a strong industry and we've had some market
access successes in relation to other products. Manufactured exports are the fastest growing side
of export markets so it's a mixed picture, John.
STANLEY: Yes I chose the word carefully, I said there was a perception abroad and I just wonder if..
PRIME MINISTER:
Easy, I mean, it's a very understandable perception because it's an attractively simple proposition
to say, protect everything, you save jobs, you keep Australian industry. Now obviously we
shouldn't be foolish about it. Obviously we shouldn't try and be world leaders in cutting
protection. We should be world leaders in being competitive. We should be demanding that other
countries match what we do and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. We will face in the next
little while a decision on the motor vehicle industry. We will have to make a decision in the next
little while what we're going to do with the Productivity Commission report. Now that will
require a fine balance and...
STANLEY: Now you met some of your own backbenchers today, didn't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
We had a party meeting and it was a very good meeting and I invited people to express their
views on this issue and there's a wide spectrum of views as you might understand. People who
represent rural electorates traditionally don't like protection for manufacturing industry because
the cost of it is borne by their constituents and Australian farmers are the least subsidised, least
protected, most efficient farmers in the world and therefore they say, well if we have to survive in
global markets then we don't like paying the cost of somebody else's protection. Equally,
members representing Adelaide electorates and industrial electorates and of course having such a
big back bench now, we represent most of the country and we're not just a party of sort of
traditional conservative areas in rural Australia so it is a very, very difficult debate. It's not one
that will be solved by simple slogans from Pauline Hanson, Simon Crean or indeed anybody else.
STANLEY:
But I would have thought at the moment politically you've got her, you've got the Labor Party,
the Democrats, everyone lined up against you in terms of what does seem to be politically a rise in
protection of sentiment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what we have to do is sensibly work through each situation. I mean, it is no good giving
away something unless you get something in return. Also you have to recognise that some
industries, no matter how much you protect them, can't survive. Now, I'm not talking about the
steel industry, quite the contrary, I can't imagine this country without a strong viable steel
industry and equally I can't imagine Australia without a strong viable manufacturing industry.
STANLEY: So on ihe proposal to further reduce protection for the car industry you've still got an open mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, wie are very, you know, much looking at that thing at the moment and I don't want to
disclose my thinking but can I say this, that I'll be influenced by determination to preserve a
strong Australian motor manufacturing industry and I'll be very conscious of the employment
situation in South Australia and I am working towards getting a policy position on that which is
sensible for the whole country but also takes those two things into account. Now, people will
judge the quality of that decision when it comes out.
STANLEY: When wvill we get that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, it will be fairly soon I don't want to tie myself down in the next, sort of, couple of
weeks quite soon...
STANLEY: I know you're juggling a few balls at the moment. Can I just ask you about cross-media
ownership laws. There's a proposal reported for newspapers . or for television proprietors in the
larger cities to be able to own one newspaper. Can you confirm that that's being looked at?
PRIME MINISTER:
A whole lot of things including that is being looked at, a whole lot of things. But some of the
reports in the paper this morning were hairy but others were a little closer to the mark in terms of
option. It is still something that is being talked through and talked through very carefully.
There's a view that we have high levels of foreign ownership. There's also a view about
diversity. One argument is that you should have a bit more diversity of ownership in the
newspaper area. But we are still considering a series of options but it is something that is being
debated inside the Government, not only in the Cabinet but also in the backbench committee.
Media policy always involves a fair amount of debate and always generates a great deal of
interest. STANLEY: Yeah, I'm just interested in the foreign ownership aspects. I think I've heard you say before you
didn't think you'd entertain any increase in foreign ownership. Are you now a bit more flexible in
allowing perhaps..
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, [ don't want to pre-emptive as to what we might do. I mean, obviously there are quite
high levels of foreign ownership and the aggregate level of foreign ownership in the media is
something that everybody would want to keep an eye on. But we are looking at a range of
options. STANLEY:
But with the possibility of increasing 15% to 25% foreign ownership
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to either confirm or deny that.
STANLEY: Okay. Can I just ask you just one other thing. There is a suggestion this morning, and certainly
the events in the Senate, don't all go well for your 10 Point Plan on Wik would you consider a
double dissolution on that issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I'm hoping that the Senate will support the plan, I really do. Because it's the only way
out of this awful dilemma. I mean, we can't leave the Native Title Act as it is. With the best will
in the world towards the Aboriginal community, and I really do mean that, the Wik decision went
far beyond what anybody expected, even the Aborigines. They didn't expect the High Court
would say that pastoral leases and native title might co-exist.
STANLEY: You wouldn't relish fighting an election on it though would you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to, sort of, pre-empt what we're going to do. I mean, I hope your question is
hypothetical. I want to resolve this issue by getting our legislation accepted but equally I can't
have it hacked around by the Senate so that it becomes unworkable. Now, I don't want to start
talking about what might happen if it's knocked back. I still hope to persuade the Labor Party to
see the sense of supporting our 10 points. I mean, the Labor Party must think very hard about
this and put aside emotional arguments and just think very hard what is the sense in the Labor
Party blocking something that will end some of the uncertainty. I mean, we have rejected blanket
extinguishment. I mean, you saw me got to Longreach in Queensland and argue the merits and
resist some of the pressure that was being put on me on blanket extinguishment and I've said no
to that. And equally I have to say with the best will in the world to the Aboriginal community
that the 10 Point Plan preserves all of the principles of native title. It does represent less than
what they got from the High Court in Wik. I don't make any bones about that. But I think and I
believe the community thinks that Wik went too far and you've got to pull the pendulum back and
that really is what the 10 Point Plan does.
STANLEY: Just on the Stolen Generation Report I think you're going to have a formal response in about a
month is there still a possibility that you'll consider the recommendation there for a more formal
apology? PRIME MINISTER:
Look John, our situation is that we have said we're not supportive of compensation and may I
make the point that the Labor Party, when it was in power, chose to fight the case in the High
Court claiming compensation in relation to children who'd been removed in the Northern
Territory the so-called Kruger case and all of the facts of that would have been known to the
government of the day. We're going to look at all of the recommendations and we're going to
give a considered response.
STANLEY:
Just on the formal apology part though, is that still a possibility?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, look, there are... we're looking at all of the recommendations. We've made it very, very
clear that we're not supportive of compensation and in that sense we're exactly the same as what
the Labor Party was when it was in government. I don't really want to go any further.
STANLEY:
Okay. PRIME MINISTER:
I noted incidentally that Sir Ronald Wilson, the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, said
today that he understood that it was a very big report and that the Government had to give a
considered response. It is a very difficult issue. I have read very large sections of that report and
it is gripping. It's very depressing. It's very disturbing reading. On the other hand, as I've said,
the notion that our generation should begin to accept legal liability and liability for the deeds of
earlier generations, particularly if they were sanctioned by law, opens us up into a whole
new... well, I mean, where does it end? Do you start getting people who are in adoption situations
bringing claims for breaches of their human rights? I mean, there has to come a time when you've
got to focus on the future and the best way that we can help people who were affected by those
things is to help them now and into the future. And there are a lot of recommendations in the
report which are directed towards and I would imagine that in those areas...
STANLEY: I think we're out of time Mr Howard. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER:
Okay. j