P. M. cont...
bipartisanship about the questions of immigration, and I see
no reason why we can't resume that position.
JOURNALIST: Why don't you, Prime Minister, then just simply
instruct the members of your parliamentary party anyway, not
to raise the issue and not to debate it at all.-
Well, I think, Trevor you will see that from our side of
politics we won't be injecting this into the political and
electoral situation.
JOURNALIST: How would you achieve that?
Well leave that to me.
JOURNALIST: Were you impressed With John Howard's speech?
Yes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said earlier in the week that you and
Bill Hayden were in total accord on the issue specifically of
U. S. bases in Australia following his comments in Geneva.
Yes.
JOURNALIST: Are you in total accord generally on ALP policy?
I would think an examination of the record,, George, over
a long period -including when Bill was Leader of the Oppositionwould
show that there have been very very few issues of domestic
or international politics on which there has been a divergence
between Bill and myself. And indeed that has been a matter of
comment by many people that there really hasn't been ideological
arguments between Bill and myself. There was the question of
leadership, but I have received from Bill Hayden since he has
become Minister total support. In the development of initiatives
in the foreign policy area, there has been. gull co-operation between
Bill and myself, For instance very soon after we came into office,
I told him when he was going on his first visit to Indonesia
and the question of Indo-China was to come up that I had the
view that because we in Australia had a unique position of
relationships not only with the ASEAN countries, but with China
and a capacity to talk to Vietnam, and good relations with the
United States, that I thought.: we could play some sort of role
not overstating it-through this range of contacts and good relations,
to try and develop some initiative there of moving towards a
resolution of this tragic situation. And Bill accepted that artd
he hasI think,, excellently pursued that course. So it will be a
pretty barren exercise for you,, George, if you try and look for
significant areas of difference between Bill and myself.-
JOURNALIST: If, as you say., there are no significant ideological
differences between you and Bill Hayden, why did the Centre Left
come into existence and why is Bill Hayden regarded as the
titular head of that group. It's-because they disagree with you
basically. .13
3.
P. M. No.-wellthe facts, as usual, dispute your assumptions and it.' s
a good idea to look at the facts rather than develop your
assumptions well at least to check your assumptions against.-
the facts. The statements of the Centre Left, which have been.
made from the beginning, have been in terms of support for me,
my positions and my leadership. Now statements may not be enough,
so we have to check statements against facts. And it is the
fact that at the ALP National Conference, that on every issue
which I had been developing over the months they supported me..
For instance uranium, the entry of foreign banks, basic economic
policy. On all of those issues the Centre Left supported me.
Now again thirdly, let's check the statement and the facts against
the reactions of others. What did others, the Left say? The
Left attacked the Centre Left because they had been,-it was said,
tame supporters of the Prime Minister. So, you have their
statements, you have their actions and ydui have the assessments
of the other factions.
JOURNALIST: I have to repeat, if they don't disagree with you,
if they don't regard themselves as being to your left that's
why they called themselves the Centre, Left, why did they come
into existence? Oh well, that's another question and the answer I think
is fairly straight forward.. If you look at the history of the
Labor Party, in particular in a National Conference context .' over
the past, what you had is, if you like, the NSW Right'-I use
the descriptions that are easily applied, I don't accept the
accuracy of labels, but people know what we are talking about
the NSW Right) j and you've had the Victorian nen,'-socialist Left.
And they have tended to adopt their positions as against the
Left and the people in the other states. South Australia, Western:
Australia, Queensland, Tasmania have tended not to be organised
and have come along with the non-Left generally in support of the
more organised grouping in NSW and Victoria. And they have
regarded, in my judgement understandably, that they have had
a lack of identity and have been residuals in the process.
And that's been true not only at the National Conferqnce, but
to some extent in the Caucus. And I can understand an attempt:
to get some sort of ohesivenessa amongst that group. From the
very beginning you will know that publicly and privately I have
not condemned its formation, I have not seen it as a threat and
I think they have been useful. Indeed at the National Conference,
while we would have won on uranium even if the Centre Left
hadn't been formed, the fact that they were formed enabled a
certain amount of cobesiveness. and discipline amongst-itheir
group to produce the slightly larger majority than perhaps
we otherwise would have had.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if we lookatthe history of the
Labor Party one thing that concerns every Labor leader is
divisiveness and factional disputation. Now you're getting
signs of that being a problem with the pre-selections for the
new seats. Is that concerning you? / 14
4.
I would, and any Labor Leader would always, I guess,
particularly in a per-election period have no bubbles(?), and
it would be quite dishonest to say other wise. But I accept
the fact that now we have in Australia a Federal Labor Government
and four State Labor Governments and they have come to office
in the historical situation of factions within the Party. But,
importantly, in addition to what we have delivered federally,
the state Governments have delivered the goods. And the peoplemade
the judgements about alternative Governments on the basis
of performance and if you want to again take the question of
comparison if you look at the coalition parties.-the real deep
differences of ideologies are not confined to the Labor Party,
they are becoming increasingly apparent oD the side of the
conservative coalition. Now...
JOURNALIST: I'm sorry, do you think the pre-selections are going
well. In NSW, in particular, it seems that the candidates
coming through are to the left of the position that you would like
to see. Well, I don't accept that Robert. We've got not merely the
existing seats, but the new seats. And it would be my
judgement that in total, as far as NSW is concerned, when the
preselections are finished that, if you like as between the
Left and the more central position that I occupy, the balance
would be from NSW after the election more my way.
JOURNALIST: Do you see problems for yourself in being perceived as a
Government thiat's a Labor Government that's cuddling up too close to
business, that you're seen as the friends of business and that the
Left will sell that as; you having sold out to business.
P. M. Well, I thi-nk that it's perhaps summned up in an article
in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald by Ross Gittins. I'm sorry
about mentioning the opposition but the heading was good
Paul does care but the trendies are last to know. I'll just
quickly read two paragraphs of it which make the point. " Paul
Keading may not look like a bleeding heartbut his Budget confounds
middle income-earners at the expense of the poor, thereby
abandoning traditional Labor values in the interests of their base
political ambition. The new conventional wisdom that Bob and Paul have
got into bed with big business and big unions and are screwing down
on the very people Labor is supposed to protect contains a large
deposit of codswallop." This mistaken view--is being vigorously.-
propogated. It's said by Labor's own left wing," although I don't
think it is true " small-L Liberals in the Melbourne press and the
trendy lefties who have overrun that formerly sensible organisation,
the Australian Council of Social Service." And Gittins, as do
others, goes ahead and analyses what in fact has happened under
18 months of my Labor Government, which has seen a significant
improvement in the welfare conditions of those most in need
in the country.
JOURNALIST: The businessmen also seem to think that you are
friend of theirs though, have they been duped?
And you see, you have put your finger on the great truth
of the success of this Government. What I have tried to convey
to the people of Australia and to the trade unions and to business
and to those who depend upon social welfare is that they should
not see themselves as competing interests. The fundamental truth
which I have tried to get the Australian People to grasp and which
I think they overwhelmingly do, is that the.-interest of business
and unions and the social welfare group are not to be seen as
contradictory. What is most likely to happen is that they are
all going to benefit;-business, workers and social beneficiaries
if we co-operate together-increase economic growth, increase
employment. Now the facts are th~ ere. We have achieved the highest
rate of economic growth in the western world-. We have achieved
the highest increase in employment, it will be 400,000 new.. jobs
by June of next year. And we have produced falling inflation and
falling interest rates. Now, in the resuLt, business profitability
is up back to the highest levels, as a proportion, for the decade.
The trade union movement has got secured real levels of disposable
income, they have increased. And the beneficiaries have got the
situation where they had real-reductions in their benefits under
7 years of conservative rule very substantial increases in their
real benefits under us. So the truth is that business benef its frm us,
workers benefit from us and social beneficiaries benefit from us.
We have put behind us fighting one another, we.! re getting the
truth understood that if we co-operate together each group will
benefit. JOURNALIST: You seem quite convinced that t~ he traditional Labor
supporter understands that are you still with him?
Well, all I can say, all I can say,, George, as distinct:
from conjuring up assumptions in the back of my mind-as you appear
to do, I prefer to look at the evidence. I~ t is always the sensible
thing to do. All I can say is that in the admirable publication
over which Trevor Kennedy presides, the Bulletin which puts a
regular testing apparatus out on the views of people consistently
I have the support of over 90% of Labor voters.
JOURNALIST: Do you think you are a. bit sensitive to the reaction
of this Budget?
No. I don't. I believe that my job as Prime Minister is;
to explain the Budget and if mistaken criticism is made, and there
has been very little of it.-overwhelmingly it has been a positive
response to this Budgetr but where some commentators have misunderstoo(
the facts about the increase and the level of tax receipts, then
I have had to explain that. And I must say to the credit of those
involved, and I won't name names, that when I have pointed the
mistake of their analysis and that in fact the increase in tax
receipts is fundamentally aL reflection of the enormous growth.
in the economy they have understood that and accepted it.
JOURNALIST: Well as a commentator we appreciate the help that you
give us, but you bit a journalists head off in Melbourne the
other day and then had to back-track and concede that his figures
were right and you were wrong.
* 4
P. M. Don ' t let'Is be elliptical about this. You are referring to
Max Walsh, and I didn't bite his head off. What in fact happened
is that Max on Budget night referred to -the 23% increase in irne
tax receipts and I pointed out that in fact the figure that
you had to look at was the 10.7% in PAYE earnings. And'tha-t wh-en you
looked at that, that was explained precisely by the two factorsof
the 7 %. increase in average weekly earnings, a 34% increase
in employment-and that in fact if we hadn't made the tax cuts
that we did that increase would not have been 10.7%, but 15.8%.
And Max to his credit accepted that analysis.
JOURNALIST: Mr Prime Minister isn't there some justification
for criticism of the tax cuts given that statistics have shown
that about one million Australians will move into a higher tax
bracket next year.
P. M4.: No, there's not. The facts of course are on that,. that
with growth in incomes it is inevitable that you have moves
in brackets. The thing to understand that is that an enourmous
number of people, more than a million, wi. be in a lower tax
bracket with the introduction of the 25 cent step. And on
balance the great majority of taxpayers are going to be better off.
JOURNALIST: But, the way . the Budget is currently being sold.
surely is that this is of long standing benefit for Australians at
large.-which it isn't. li
On the contrary, it is.. I mean just let'. s look at
some of the facts which we can put to refute the sort of attitude
of the opposition who are trying to put this proposition.
If you look at PAYE tax collections as a percentage of GDP
and that's what you've got to do whether you are getting the
economy growing or not are there more . people in jobs and therefore
paying tax' wasthretinhip of the tax take to what's
happening in the economy. In the last two years of our opponents
Trevor, the proportion that net PAYE was of gross domestic product,
was 11.7% in 81/ 82, 11.5% in 82/ 83 and in our two years 83/-84 itY has
come down to 10.6 and 10.9%. Now we are not able to be criticised
for the fact that we have got the economy growing. The function
of growth is that the Government receives more revenue, because
by the end of next year, next financial year Trevor, by June
there will be 400,000 more Australians in work than we came to
office. So that instead of outlays on unemployment benefits
for a growing army of unemployed we have now transformed the economy
where many many more people are in work and they are making
contributions. Now that is the factual situation and it is the
case that the tax cuts that we have given represent much more than
full indexation.
JOURNALIST: So are you saying then, that -there are not people out
there who are going to gain by the tax cuts and then lose next
year when they move into the higher bracket? ./ 7
As people move into higher brackets always it means that. the
marginal dollar will be more under the higher bracket than it wras
before. But it is a function of growth in. income. It's the same
way that we are receiving much more in company tax very very much
more in company tax than before. The reason why we are doing that
is that company income has grown dramatically. And if you ask
the businessman what does he prefer as a position one where he
is paying less tax because he has got less income or because hi~ s
business is growing he pays more tax.-he'll tell you what the
answer is. Now we don't pretend George that the present tax scales
are perfect because if I wanted to say to youthat that was the case
it would be dishonest. But what we have done is to try and introduce
elements into the tax scale now which ensure greater equity.
You see if we had followed the system of our predecessors when they
talked about tax benefits what they did meant that you three:
people and me people on higher incomes we got far and away the
biggest benefit. While those at the lower and middle level of income
got less. Now we happen to think that in this society that WE! are
trying to build -whiere we are working together-we are trying t~ o
have growth and equity, it was sensible to introduce the two
new steps into the tax scale which meant that in terms of the 1.3
billion that we had judged we had available for tax cuts~ that I t
meant that those at the lower and middle level got a greater benefit.
And I happen to have that faith in our fellow Australians that
they approve of that arrangement.
JOURNALIST: The end result Prime Minister of.. everything-. that we
are trying to do with economic Poli~ cy with the accord and growth
and business investment is to get unemployment really down?
Yes. Yes.
JOURNALIST: Now Ralph Willis seems to be talking about us
accommodating ourselves and becoming used to a Iong-term. unemploymenrt rate
of around about now isn't that the fundamental problem that.-
you have that you can't get the unemployment down.
No, Ralph is not talking about that as a long-term level.
We have been able to get the unemployment down -as you know
by about 1 percentage points approximately 10.3% to 8.8%,
in a relatively short. And the Budget assumes a further slight
reduction in unemployment in 84/ 85.
JOURNALIST: Some people would say that these are very modest...
Well some people would also say that it is an unbelievable
improvement on seven years of conservatism. In the last..
JOURNALIST: Wasn't it only a slight reduction though.
Well, in 84/ 85 we are talking about a reduction which,
well let me put it the other way-through the year we are looking
ata3 roughly increase in employment. Now if you assume that
the labour force grows and the figure is about 1.7/ 1.8% growth
in the labour force you are looking at the possibility of a further
reduction of the order of 1% plus. Now what we are saying is that
the essential thing was what we have done already that is
to stop the explosion of unemployment. The explosion of one
quarter of a million in unemployment that took place in the last
twelve months before we came into office, we' 1ve stopped that ./ 8
'-p
P. M. cont:
we've delivered our promise. I said that we would stop the
explosion of unemployment, we'd create jobs and over three years
we'd create half a million new jobs.
JOURNALIST: Now, just a minute I just want to make it clear that your
first steps have got to be the turn around we've done that and'
we are ahead of that target that we promised the people of half' a
million new jobs in our first three years. Now the important thing
Robert and you correctly put your finger on how we've got to be!
looking in the longer-term, ykou've got tc make the right basic
decisions about the structure of the Australian economy, your education
system and your trading relationships which will give you confidence
through the longer period through-a coherent and cohesive
combination of proper macroeconomic policies and education policies
and restructuring and trading relationships that you are going to
offer the opportunity of a gradual reduction through time. And.
that's all I am promising, I have delivered every promise I have
made about employment and unemployment and that is directed in the
longer stage to gradually bringing down those levels and we will do
it.
JOURNALIST: Is this country going to see full employment again in
our lives? I don't think, Robertthat we will ever see a restoration
of what characterised that first generation after the war which
was that in this country you had more jobs available than people
to fill them. That's not going to come back. So what as-,&=_. spciety
we've got-and this is where the emphasis upon education is so
important-and why we've had the participation and equity program
and the continuation of that, the creation of another 30,000 hew.
places in the tertiary sector in the next few years, We've got
to make our education system relevant to the nature of the economy
that is developing., so that the people who are coming through into
the workforce are going to have the best possible chance of being
equipped to fill the sorts of jobs that a.. changing economy is going
to provide. And it will be an inevitable feature of our life into
the future that working time will decrease. That has been the
characteristic of history and with the rapid improvements in
technology it will become more so. So what as a society we-havegot
to do is to have our education system making our people best
equipped to be able to fill the increasing number of jobs that will
be available. but also that they are going -to be able, all of us, to
accommodate ourselves to less time involved in the work-place.
JOURNALIST: Have you any figure in mind, say 5% by 1990 or something
that you can offer us?
I don't think it's useful to put a figure on it now. I
think what I ought to do is what I have done. In February/ March of
' 83 I made specific promises. I said I'll stop the explosion
of unemployment, we've done that. I said we will create more jo: bs,,
get employment growing, and I took a three year period then and
I thought it reasonable then to say that I could promise a half
million jobs in three years. You will recall Trevor that when
made those promises people pooh-poohed me. Now we are ahead of
target so what I am saying now and I will be more specific in the
election campaign when it arises. I will carefully say to the ./ 9
V 1. 1
P. M. cant.
Australian people look I have delivered these promises,
these are the sorts of things that I think I can promise in the
near future. But importantly what I am able to say to the Australian
people is that we are directing ourselves to those sorts of
considerations that Robert Haupt referred to, and that is
we have got to make these fundamental changes about the structure
of our industry to develop those things which we are best able to
do, to develop our trading relationships with this fastest
growing area of the world in SouthtEast and North-East A. รต ia
so that we can get the benefit of their growth and make a
contribution to it and importantly make our education system
relevant. It is no good just increasing funds for education. .: Et
is necessary and we have done it. But that's why I have appointed
the Karmel Review into the quality Of educuation, because I
want to ensure that the money which Australian people through their
taxes pay on the education system in both the public and the private
sector is most likely to ensure that our young people are going;
to have the best opportunity of taking advantages of growth.
JOURNALIST: You talked in the last election campaign about a
new class in this country and you were referring to thet unemployed,
could you see political danger for you in youth unemployment
that young people could become disillusioned by a Hawke Government
because jobs are not being created for them.
No, because I have a higher judgement about the pqrppicac'ity
of those people than you seem to have because there are two
things which are true and indisputable. First, that we have
created thousands of more jobs f or these young people.-' efore they
were facing increasing levels of unemployment-under this
Government there are more jobs. And secondly whereas they were
treated with contempt by the Liberal National Party coalition
their benefits were frozen and therefore reduced in real terms.
We've increased the benefits in a short time for adult and junior
unemployed by over 25%. So they see a Government which is not
just words but it has produced the.. right policies to produce more
jobs and in respect of those who are still unfortunately unemployed
we have with compassion moved in real terms,* not just money terms,-,
to improve their position.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister turning to foreign affairs issues
and your about to take off for Tuvalu for the South Pacific Forum
at that Forum there will be a proposal for a nuclear free zone
in the South Pacific. Is such a proposal feasible orisitjust a
pie-in-the-sky.
Yes, it is feasible Robert. You will appreciate that I
advanced that proposal here in Canberra at the meeting of the
Forum last year, and got a very substantiah11favourable response.
we will continue those discussions in Tuvalu and there were the'
indications of Port Moresby of even stronger support. Now,
what has to be understood about that is that in the proposal that
I put last year and will develop again this year that includes
the right of passage of nuclear -powered or nuclear-armed vesse* Ls*
through the region and the right to individual countries to accept
those vessels in their ports. We had to put it in that way because
P. M. cant.
of our alliance relationship with the United States. Now I
think, therefore, that for instance the United States understands
the commitment that we have to this policy and it is afterall
a very sensible thing. What we are about it to try and ensure
that there be no testing of nuclear weapons in our region, that
there be no dumping of nuclear waste in our region, and that the'-
countries of the region undertake themselves not to manufacture
or store nuclear weapons in their areas. Now these are legitimate
aspirations of sovereign nations and should not be seen as any-thing
other than likely to lead to an improvement in our part of the
world and making a contribution to our part of the world to the
search whic4 I believef is deeply felt. by the overwhelming majority
of men and women-kind, and that is that we want to see a reduction
of the level of nuclear armaments in this world. We cannot
contemplate the holocaust of a nuclear disaster.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, given what you have said about the passage
of ships and nuclear-powered nuclear-armed vessels and. the United
States.. You could never see yourself in a position such as that
that David Lange is in at the moment, your Labor counterpart in
New Zealand could imagine yourself saying to the Americans
we are not going to take those ships and if you don't like that
that means ANZUS has had it.
No, we have been through that in our party, and our position
is clear, and it. is historically well based. It was the Labor
Government of John Curtin which forged the relationship with the
United States. We are not an unaligned country. We are an aliLgned
country through our alliance. Now our judgement is; and the
party has endorsed this, that that alliance involves obligations
and those obligations we will adhere to.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister on another subject, just forthe moment,
you did say the other day that your Ministry was the biest
since the war...
Yes
JOURNALIST: and that your trust and confidence in the Ministers
had been repaid. Does that mean that after the election
we won't. have a re shuffle?
Well, what you have got to understand under the constitution
of the Labor PartyiTrevor, is that I don't elect those who are
in the Ministry.
JOURNALIST: You allocate the portfolios.
I'll allocate, but you see that's relevant. to your question.
I' mean if, in.* the election by the Caucus , there are changes Of pe! ople
there. JOURNALIST: Well perhaps I should have sdid are there likely to be any
reshuffle of portfolios?
There may be some reshuffling but I would say at this time
that my thinking that it would be minor, because I believe that. the
Ministers in their portfolios have done excellent jobs. May I say,
Trevor on that, that perhaps some people to some extent may discount
the pride of a Prime Minister in his term when he says it is the
best since the war. I would remind you and viewers of the statement
by Mr John Reid, and I believe his assessment has a particular .11/
vz-~ ie-, k r.
P. M. cant.
significance because you will recall the. contretemps that occurred
in the latter days of our opposition. Now Mr Reid who is
a man who at first hand has had the opportunity of witnessing and
working with a large number of Governments since the war,
himself it was reported recently as saying of this Ministry that
it is the best collection of talent assembled in Canberra since
the war. I think the the proof is there.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you said earlier in -the week that you would
tell the Australian people in a reasonably short period of time
I think was the phrase whether or not wde are going to have
an election this year.
P. M. Yes.
JOURNALIST: Aren't you, like so many of your predecessors, merely
fuelling speculation about'an election, with that sort of a comment.
what the heck is a reasonably short period of time.
No, George of course again, yo~ u are wrong. It's the opposite
of my predecessors. From quite early in my Government I said that
because of the actions of my predecessors who had completely
broken the electoral rhythm by calling an unnecessarily early double
dissolution; the Australian people were faced with the fact that
under the Constitution by April of next year there has to be a
half Senate election. So I said to the people very early that I
think the best interests of everybody is served by not having another'
election because if we had the half Senate election by April of
next year, then we'd have to have the.. House of Representatives.
So I said to them early, we will have the two together, which hasbeen
the normal practice over the history of Australia, to have
the House of Representatives and half Senate. Now I have said
that that's what would happen and I have, from. the very early
piece, said that that will mean that the election will be in the
period December to March. Now that has been made quite clear
it has become accepted that that's what will happen, now obvious; ly
as Prime Minister I am entitled to look at the whole complex of
situation and make the judgement as to that time as what would
be best, not only in the Government's point of viewbut in the
country's point of view. I will be now wait a minute George
I will be making that decision within a matter of weeks and thert
having made that decision, I won't keep it i~ n my mind and *. play
around with the people and not tell them. As soon as I have madle
up my mind, which will be in a very short period, as I have made
up my mindI will tell the Australian people. Now every part of'
that is in distinct contrast to our conservative predecessors.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, thank you for joining us.
Thank you very much Robert, and Trevor and George.