E. E. PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 3 APRIL 1984
PM: Well ladies and gentlemen, thank you. I wanted to meet
with you particularly in respect of the decision that I made
that Stewart West should return to the Cabinet which decision
was unanimously endorsed by the Caucus this morning. If I*
can just briefly recapitulate and recall that last year, 3 November,
Stewart expressed the view that he could not accept the decisio-n
in respect of uranium taken by the Cabinet. He was quite
straightforward about that and accepted that on the basis of
Cabinet solidarity that would mean that he would have to leave
the Cabinet. With regret I accepted that position. I have beE~ n
of the view that Stewart should return to the Cabinet. I
discussed the matter with him and he indicated to me now that
unequivocally he accepts the principle of Cabinet solidarity.
on that basis I believe that the Cabinet should re-acquire his
services in the Cabinet and I repeat I put that to the Cabinet
yesterday and the Cabinet unanimously agreed as did the Caucus
this morning.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, will this Cabinet solidarity extend to
the National Conference of the Party? Will you expect that Mr.
West should abide by the Cabinet decisions on uranium at the
Conference? PM: I don't know whether Mr. West is going to be at the Conference.
In that sense it is quite hypothetical. But I understand that
Stewart has accepted the decision of the Sovernment that has been
made. JOURNALIST: If you are at the Conference Mr. West will you abide
by the principle of Government solidarity?
WEST: Well the principle of Government solidarity I have
accepted. I always did accept that in the community and the
principle of Cabinet solidarity between the Cabinet and the
Caucus is of course accepted. It is not known whether I will be a
delegate or not at the Conference. I may be part of any on-going
discussions on this or any other matter. I accept the
principle of Cabinet solidarity and Mr. Hawke has re-iterated that.
JOURNALIST: Mr. West, why do you accept the principle now when
you apparently didn't accept the principle back in November?
2.
WEST: Well the uranium question was a very difficult question
for me personally, as is well known. The decision on uranium
as far as the Cabinet and the Caucus and the Government is
concerned has been made and of course all Ministers of this
Government are expected, and I accept that, in the public arena
to abide by the decisions of the Government as they are made
within the proper democratic processes decision making processesas
outlined in our Cabinet memoranda.
JOURNALIST: Does this mean you have said that you were wrong
last year?
WEST: Well, I was wrong within the concept that Cabinet solidarity
ought to be maintained. Obviously I accepted at the time th~ at if
I didn't abide by Cabinet solidarity that I would have to be stood
down from the Cabinet and that is precisely what occurred and
knew that that would occur when I took the decision that I did..
I believe, as I have said, that the decisions that are properly arrive(;
at within the Cabinet/ Caucus decision making process under a system
which the Caucus and the Cabinet and the Ministry have endorsed
ought to be complied with and of course I have always done that.
The point was at the time that I didn't abide by Cabinet
solidarity on the uranium issue within the Parliamentary Party
and once that decision was taken there was never any question -that
any Minister including myself would support it publicly in the open
arena. JOURNALIST: Mr. West, is it fair to say that this indicates t*-iat
the uranium question is largely a fait accompli that is at the
conference in July that the Government's ( decision will be passed
by the conference?
WEST: I am not saying that it is my duty to pre-empt what the
conference might do. My own view is that there be a continuing
rational discussion on the issue within the Party as there ought
to be within the confines of the Party leading up to the
Federal Conference.
JOURNALIST: Does your return to Cabinet, Mr. West, signal
a change in attitude on uranium by you?
WEST: It doesn't signal any change in my beliefs. It certairly
signals that I accept that I or any significant section of thE
Party wishes to be part of the Government, part of the Cabinet.,
that we accept solidarity in the context that that is the
decision of the Cabinet, the Minister and. the Caucus and that I
act within those guidelines.
JO0URNALIST: Can I clarify the point with either of you about
the rules for Conference. Cabinet solidarity does not apply,
surely in any vote at National Conference! an internal decision
making organ of the Party, does it?
WEST: The Cabinet solidarity to which we are referring is the
s olidarity in the Federal Parliamentary L1abor Party that also
applies in the open public arena.
JOURNALIST: What about Conference?
WEST: Well that's a hypothetical question. I don't know whethE~ r
I will be a delegate and I certainly would expect, as I have
said, that a rational discussion on any issue would occur with in
the Party, but I accept that it is not my role as a Government
Cabinet Minister to be putting any position. in the public arena
that is contrary to Government policy.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, could you clarify the rules on this
matter? PM: Could I clarify what?
JOURNALIST: The rules on whether Ministers are bound at
Conference to support the Cabinet decision.
PM: Once the question of a decision. is for the supreme policy
making body of the Party, I would imagine that people there as
delegates could have the opportunity of expressing their views,
but how Ministers will operate on this matter I think will be a
matter for particular discussion within thE! Ministry. In other
words we will have a discussion about this before the Conference
and I am not going to by answer here pre-empt the view that we may
adopt on that issue.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you think that Cabinet was
weakened over the last five months by not having a representative
of the left wing faction?
PM: Yes, I think it would have been better-for the operation of
the Party if Stewart could have been there and Stewart would quite
readily concede at the time of the discussion that we had which
was a totally amicable one I just put that point of view quite
specifically to him and he understood it, but he felt strongly
at the time and I accepted it. The answer to your question is
yes, I think it would have been bett~ er and I am glad for three
reasons, if I may say personally to have Stewart back. Secondly,
in regard to the factional consideration that you allude to,
Laurie. Thirdly, let me say this, I think the portfolio is a
very important one and I have had some points of view put to me
from within the migrant community that they regretted the fact that
their portfolio having been in the Cabinet was no longer there.
And I'm glad for that reason as well. So, for the three reasons
I am pleased that Stewart is back in the Cabinet.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, you said it was your own decision to have
Mr. West back. Was that a spontaneous thing that occurred to
you, or did people have a yarn to you from within the Caucus
beforehand? PM: There had been some discussion with me going over a period
o; f time. I just don't know how far back, but quite some time
back, but I wasn't under any pressure at all on this dand I was
thinking about it the other day and I thought the time had come
so I had some discussion directly with Stewie and we I don't
know what you are laughing about, I just thought it would be a
bit much of a shock to his system if I announced it without telling
him. I wanted to check that he wanted to come back, you see. 14
JOURNALIST: Mr. West, has the administration of Immigration and
Ethnic Affairs suffered while you were outside the Cabinet?
WEST: No, no of course not. I think that on the contrary
that it won't suffer now, but it certainly being in Cabinet
imposes some extra strain and responSibility, obviously. But I
think if I might be allowed to say this that it is generally
conceded by particularly the ethnic communities that we have done
very well across the whole area of ethnic affairs legislation and
implementation of programs and the way we have handled the
immigration program generally and I think we have done very well
and I am quite certain that all of the migrant leaders and
ethnic communities across Australia will welcome the Prime
Minister's decision and I am very proud of it actually becaLse I
do see the need for those people to be represented in Cabinet
and I see the need, as I said at question time, for the widest
possible representation of all heard in the Party to be represented
in Cabinet and quite frankly if I can conclude on this note, tbhe
uranium question was always a vexacious problem in that regard
because I always saw the need to be interested and putting
representations on all of the broad range of questions that this
Government is concerned about and obviously if myself and a whole
range of views in the Party want to be represented in Cabinet
to put views upon economic matters, on industry matters, on
taxation reform matters, well then obviously I have to accept the
fact that Cabinet solidarity if you want to be involved in that
decision making process, then I accept that absolutely.
JOURNALIST: Mr. H-awke, if at National Conference Ministers are
tied to the principle of Cabinet solidarity, don't you think that
that would inhibit proper discussion about proposed changes to
the platform, seeing that is the purpose of conference?
PM: I have already answered that question, Paul, and it was a
very clear answer I gave -that I can see the issues arise
that you claim in your question and we will. have a discussion in
the Ministry before the Conference as to what is appropriate
course of action.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the issue of uranium generally.
Do you as Mr. Dawkins I want to get his words right suggested
last week that the mood or the within the Party is one more
of open of mining rather -than of winding down the industry?
PM: I don't want to go too far in pre-empting the discussions
w_ 7hich will go on before the conference and at the conference,
but I think it is fair to say that there is a discernable change
in the context of the debate and I would say no more than this
that I think and what I have seen, what has been said to me from
a number of quarters that the position that the Government
has decided upon here at the end of last year that that position
will be contained within any decision that is made at the
conference. I don't see, in other words, the uranium debate
being the devisive issue that it has been in the past. By that
I'm not saying that there won't be debate and strongly put points
of view. I think, however, that one of the big achievements of
the approach that we adopted last year here in the
Parliamentary section of the Party was the move to a much more
rational basis of discussion about this issue. I think that
will be reflected at the conference.
JOURNALIST: Mr. West have you seen Senator Walsh's draft
policy on uranium and if so do you agree with it?
WEST: I said, and I agree with the Prime Minister, that I
anticipate that there will be a rational discussion on that
issue and on other issues in the lead up to the national
conference within the proper confines of the Party apparatus
and decision making structure and that has got to occur and
quite frankly that is what I expect that there will be a
rational discussion on a contentious issue and I believe and
accept what was said by the Prime Minister, that it is not
in anyone's interest to make a Roman holiday of obvious
disagreement reaching across Australia on contentious issue
at the national conference. Clearly there will be divisions
of opinions, but we have the committee structure and we have
the proper decision making structure in place where a rational
discussion can occur and the delegates at the conference can
take a decision on that issue and indeed on any other issue
within the confines of the national conference structure.
PM: One thing we can be certain of we will have a much more
rational discussion about uranium policy than the Opposition
has about wages policy.
WEST: That is right.
JOURNALIST: Mr. West , have you discussed your return to
the Cabinet with the members of your left faction and if you
have, have you made it quite clear to them that if in future
there is a conflict between principle of Cabinet solidarity
and your own commitment to the anti uranium cause then the
form of principle will prevail?
WEST: Yes, let me be quite unequivocal. I am absolutely
certain that all of my colleagues, including those in the
area that you refer to, are completely supportive of my decision
to accept the invitation of Cabinet, Caucus and the Prime
Minister to return to the Cabinet. They take the same view as
I do, that it is not acceptable for the portfolio that I hold
and further that the people whose views I right share in the
Party should be not represented in a Cabinet of 14 or 15 in the
Labor Government of Australia and that there are other issues
to consider besides uranium on which they want their voice to bE!
heard. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the Ministry generally. What is
your view about a Minister who has a Government flat in
Canberra and also is entitled to a travelling allowance of
$ 86 a day while living in Canberra?
PM: Well, let me say two or three things about that. I don't
k-now why we should be as elliptical as we are. Usually people
are more direct than that. We are talking about Mr. Uren. He
is entitled as a Minister to Government hcusing. The fact he
has it is in accordance with a policy which was established in
1956 and has been supported and followed by successive governmerits
/ 6
since 1956. 1 am informed that since 1956 25 Ministers have
had tenancies in their names. Now, the fact is that in
respect to this particular portfolio he is required Mr. Uren
is required to spend a very considerable amount of his time
in the ACT and that of course is even when the Parliament is
not sitting. I understand that he pays standard rent for h~ s
dwelling. It is $ 113 a fortnight and. the faLct is, according
to my understanding, that Mr. Uren acquired and retains his
accommodation strictly in accordance with the long established
rules in relation to housing in the ACT for Ministers. Now,
let me say on this that in relation to travelling allowance,
Ministers who maintain a residence in Canberra, including Mr.
Uren, claim the travelling allowance when away from their
principle place of residence in another State and they do it
when on official business and they do it for a maximum of fdur
days a week and I don't think I need to remind you that that
represents a very considerable improvement over the situation
under the previous government when, for instance the Member for
Corangamite could claim travelling allowance for 327 days in a
year and the former Leader of the National Party continued to
claim travelling allowance while living in a Government home
financed by a low interest loan. So, the attitude of Mr. Uren
and his actions, I repeat, is consistent with policy followed
since 1956 and 25 Ministers have had a tenancy in their name
and in fact the maximum of four days a week which has been
followed by Ministers in my Government is significantly an
improvement on previous practice. The final point I would make
about Mr. Uren is this. If there is one person in the
Parliament who consistently has had a commitment to the concept
of the responsibility of governments to make adequate
provision for public housing it is Mr. Ureri. He doesn't have
to lower his colours to anyone in the Parliament. It is well
known I have had my differences at times with Tom Uren on issues,
but I make it quite clear that more than anyone in the
Parliament, he has played a prominent role in securing a
position of Government commitment to significant increases in
financing public housing. To be precise, this Government in it, 3
first year of office made a decision to increase the funds for
public housing by 50% and that was the largest increase in public
housing ever made by any Government and in our preparation for
Government, Mr. Uren played a very significant role in the
development of that policy.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, you mentioned the Opposition wages policy.
It is an area where you have had a bit of experience. Can
you give us your opinion of the new wages policy?
PM: Can I first of all give you some observations on how they
get there. I mean, I think this is as interesting as the policy
itself is the way they got there. Now, we have had well over a
year now in which they have been flagellating around trying to
find something which they can call a policy and we read in the
press you people assiduously discovered that they had a meeting
and it was six all and the whole question of the policy of the
opposition in regard to wages depended on Mr. Ralph Hunt. Now, we
/ 7
0 7.
all have an affection for Mr. Hfunt, including myself. I have
a great affection, but I don't think any of us would feel
that Mr. Hunt's depth and depth of knowledge of economics
and industrial relations was a proper repository finally
for determining the Opposition policy. So, there they weremeeting
was it yesterday or the day before. And they
couldn't get anywhere and Andrew went rushing in and said I've
got to have a policy by one o'clock, otherwise I'm a pumpkin.
And so they said, alright, we'll find a pol~ icy by one o'clock.
And so Mr. Howard stopped saying to Mr. Macphee that is stupid.
And Mr. Macphee stopped saying to Mr. Howard that is stupid.
And they seemed to-find the parts out of each of their
propositions which they thought was the least stupid, wrapp,@ d
them up together and said that is a policy. Now, I simply want
to say in terms of analysing their policy, that is a hell of a
way of getting there. And indeed I was surprised before that
I could, as Prime Minister, be in a more satisfied position about
the Opposition and wages policy than I was when they didn't have
one. But I must say that now I'm even more satisfied that they
have got one because the policy " up with which they've come"
is amazing. I mean the business community are laughing at it.
The trade union movement are laughing at it. Every commentator
is laughing at it because it means all things to all men which
in the end means it can't work. It won't work. It is a
prescription for chaos and I'll have great pleasure at the
appropriate moment let me say this the only hope that they
have is that they don't change it. Now that they've gone through
this traumatic process which I have described in complete accuracy
and no embellishment, I only plead with them now that they've gone
through that, that they don't change it that they adhere to it
because between now and the election, whenever that will be, I
will have great pleasure in analysing it's inadequacies in
considerable detail.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could I invite you to repeat the
comments that you made to the Caucus meeting about the ABC this
morning. PM: Yes you can.
JOURNALIST: Well, could you expand on the remarks that you
made? PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Why not?
PM: Because you know that Caucus is a sacred place. That what:
happens in the Caucus is like a confessional box, almost. I
have never been in a confessional box and I don't think the
chances are great that I ever will, but we regard it as a sacre~ d
place and I don't think, despite the tendency of my colleagues
apparently to break the rules of the confE! ssional, it is not
something that I intend to do. / 8
' p JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what are your views which you
talked about the strategic bases document and do you think
the on-going debate about it has weakened Mr. Scholes position"
PM: No, let me make the position quite clear about the
9-rategic bases. The thing of co ncern there is the leaking . of
the document. The actual documLent itself the accuracy of
which of course I neither confirm or deny as you have heard me
say but what is in the purported document is not a matter of
very considerable concern. As I have said, the document that
was considered by the Cabinet represents a putting forward of
points of view analysis by various bureaucrats. It doesn't
represent the adoption of any policy prescriptions by the
Government. So the actual policy position of the Government is
not affected by the disclosure. I have made my point about %. he
inadequacy and certainly the total bias of the way in which
the release was made and people can clearly make up their own
mind about that the mischievous nature of it, but coming to
the latter part of the question about Mr. Scholes, no, I
don't think Mr. Scholes' position has been weakened.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, are you satisfied in your mind that the
problem of the disposal of nuclear waste has been solved or
do you think it really matters?
PM: Well, they are not alternative questi~ ons as you put them.
JOURNALIST: Well answer the first one.
PM: Please?
JOURNALIST: Please.
PM: I don't think anyone would say, including Senator Walsh,
That you can say in respect of the next question of the
disposal of nuclear waste that is completely solved. I think
rather what I would say that there seem to have been important
advances made which offer hope that we may be able to deal with
the question, but I certainly wouldn't say unequivocally that
we can assert that the problems of waste disposal have been
irrovacably solved. But now I will direct myself to the other
question which wasn't an alternative although you put it as such.
Of course the question of the disposal of nuclear waste matters.
There is no-one I think in any point of the debate on the
question of uranium who would say that it doesn't matter. Of
course it matters.