PRIME -MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT PRESS CONFERENCE, 16 OCTOBER 1984
TRAVELODGE HOTEL DARWIN
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
P.. M. s Well it's quite clear befd that before this campaign started
4-that the major issue was going to be economic credibility. The
9 credibility the Opposition within the Parliament I would suggest
has already beew-destoye. One had hoped that once the campaign
started that there may. be some evidence that the Opposition would
treat the Australian electorate as they are that is an intelligent
body, able to understand basic ecemomics. Instead of that-we hd'ie-e
on Peacock's first day of campaigning been fttroduced to fftt-earfW
economics. The proposition that we will have tax cuts at the same
time as he has promised an increase definitely of $ 2h billion
in new expenditures, and when you take indicative expenditures of
about another $ 4h billion, there are about $ 7 billion new
expenditures in the pipeline for the Opposition. Now they say
they are going to have these new eKpenditures, reduce the deficit,
reduce taxes and they want to be believed all at the same time.
Now the only way that that can begin to make sense, if it can ata11,
is by equivalent spending cuts of more than $ 7 billion. Now the
Australian electorate is entitled through the campaign to be
looking very closely at Mr Peacock, Mr Howard and others to find
out where these massive spending cuts are going to be. Are they
going to cut defence, are they going to cut education, social
security just where are you going to get these cuts from. Now
the truth, of course, is that you are seeing the politics of
desperation leading to this flat-earth economics. They know that
they won't be called upon to give effect to this nonsense. And, of
course, against that flat-earth economics and politics of desperation
the people of Australia have the clear position that this
Government has been office now since the beginning of 1983 it'. s
turned around the Australian economy from the stagnation that we
inherited to the fastest growing economy in the world. We've done
that with tax cuts for all coming into place next month, with a
reduction in the size of the deficit and we will continue next year
with a further reduction of the deficit with no overall increases in
taxes. And we will do this by ensuring that expenditure programs
grow at a lesser rate than the economic growth of the country as,
a whole.
JOURNALIST: If you want to be positive in this election campaicn,
why are you reacting so sharply to the Opposition policies?
I have said quite clearly from the beginning of the period
P. M. cont..: in which we knew we would be going into an election
that I had the responsibility of doing two things. Firstly, to
talk positively about our record, what we've done and what we'll be
doing in the future. But I also have a clear responsibility to
the people of Australia to analyse what is being said by the
Opposition. And if the electorate is being insulted as they are
by Mr Peacock's flat earth economics, then I have the responsibility
to the people of Australia to reveal this nonsense and this insult
to their intelligence with which they are being confronted.
JOURNALIST: -The former head of the Treasury, John Stone, says
that a swag of new taxes next year are inevitable now.
Well you raised the question of Mr Stone. Australia had
the opportunity, if that's the right way of putting it, of living
under a combination of Mr Howard and Mr Stone for several years.
They paid a very high price for the combined efforts of Mr Howard
and Mr Stone. I think the people of Australia have done very
very much better under the policies of the H-awke Labor Government.
We have delivered what we promised we will continue to do that
and I don't think the people of Australia are going to be
particularly influenced by the failed Howards and Stones.
JOURNALIST: Stone's forecasts are wrong?
Yes indeed.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the Chief Minister is resigning tomorrow
I understand to contest this seat. Do you regard him as a formidable
opponent for Mr Reeves.
I don't think I would say formidable. But one must recognise
that as Chief Minister of the Territory he is well known. And I
would be stupid to deny that fact. But I do make this point, that
Mr Bveringham has on a number of occasions made it clear, and this
must give great comfort to Mr Peacock, that I'm going to win the
election and probably win, it with an increased majority. Nov I
think the people of the Territory are going to recognise that it's
very sensible for them to maintain the position where they've had
in the Hawke Labor Government a representative in John Reeves whom
I can say directly to th? people of the Territory has been a
significant advocate for them. There are things that we have done
in the Budget context and outside that would not have been done
if it hadn't been for John Reeves. And in terms of the self-intarest
of the people of the Northern Territory I think they will perceive
it makes infinitely more sense for them to have a voice in the
Government which Mr Everingham. says is going to be returned and
probably with an increased majority, than to replace an effective
member, a Government member, with a voice in a smaller Opposition.
And in putting that proposition involves no attach on the integrity
of the personalities of Mr Everingham. it -just a matter of sheer
plain comumonsense.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke how marqinal or how close do % oti considerthe
voting will be in the electorate of the Northern Territory.
I think Mr Reeves will win comfortably, he 3leserves to.
ecause he'? s been an excellent member.
P. M. cont...: lie's been persistent and assiduous in his
representations to me and to the Cabinet on the interests of the
Trerritory. And that's been reflected in all the things that we've
done for the Territory. Let me throw one statistic at you. There'll
be more that I'll be giving while I'm here, but the tax sharing grant
to the Northern Territory an increase of 12% for 84/ 85 against the
average for the States of the significant increase in road
funding and the undertaking to upgrade the Stuart H~ ighway, to incre-ase
the rail facilities to Alice Springs, what we'll be doing in the
area of communications. All these things we've moved persistent. Ly
and effectively on with the persistent prodding of John Reeves.
Now a member of the Government for the Northern Territory can do
that, he's in a position to do it. And we've seen since March
of 1983 Mr Reeves doing that for the people of the Territory
persistently telling us directly in Government. He says these
are the needs, these are the things that have got to be done. Now
he can do that as a Government member and an Opposition Leader can't
do it.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister his powers of persuasion weren't sufficient
to convince you to build the Darwin to Alice Springs railway nor to
permit the expansion of the uranium industry in the Northern
Territory. How do you think that the people of the Territory
Well I think the people of the Territory will respond to
those in an appropriate manner. Let me make it clear on the
question of the rail lines that we had said before the election,
well, alright, we'll do that, it was something that had been
indicated by the previous Government. When we inherited that
extra $ 3.6 billion deficit we simply had to look at the programs
that we'd talked about and we had to question whether that was in
those tight circumstances something which could be done. And
Mr Reeves put his case as did the Labor Premier of South Australia.
We listened to him, we listened to the Chief Minister. Mr EveringhamV
put his case very strongly. But what we said in those circumstances
we'll have an independent enquiry the Hill enquiry. And it was
quite clear that you were going to be facing a totally uneconomic:
use of resources. And so we just didn't say well that's it. We
listened then to Mr Reeves and we said now what are the sorts of
things in your judgement that we ought to do. Because we had to
listen to him. Mr Everingham had said the Stuart Highway doesn't
need any more money spent on it. That's what he'd said. That's hiow
responsible he was. And we listened to Mr Reeves. And he indicated
yes, it would make sense~ to spend more money. In addition to
$ 39 million that had already been allocated we have now allocated
another $ 27 million through to the end of the 1980' s about 1987/ 88
on this, including an extra $ 2.7 million this year, to upgrade the
Stuart Highway to a modern all weather road. So that's the way in
regards to the railway that Mr Reeves was responsible. He didn't
say no, it's the railway or nothing, which is what the Chief
Minister said absolutely denying his responsibilities of proper
representation in the interests of the Territory. Mr Reeves
approached it sensibly. Now in regard to the second part of your
question uranium mining. The facts there are that the existing
mines Ranger and Narbalek are continuing. Well Narbalek mining
of course, as we know, is mined out, but it's the selling of it.
In regards to Ranger I have been in constant touch with the
management of Ranger and have facilitated their negotiation of extra
contracts and so everyone who is employed in the industry here will
N,
P. M. cont...: continue to be employed. And I think the economic
facts are that with Ranger and Narbalek and with Roxby going ahead
that the economic market forces would determine that that would be
sufficient from Australia in the foreseeable future to meet market
demands. So Mr Reeves' involvement there has been positive and
constructive. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Mr Everingham has indicated several times
that he considers himself to be front bench material should he win -the
fight.. Well it's all hypothetical because he's not going to be there.
So all my answers now will be~ procwaW. ipon a purely hypothetical
basis. So you're getting a special fav our, I normally don't answer
hypothetical questions. But first of -all he's got this problem, he's
got to make a decision as to which Party he's going to join. Now I~
guess that what he's doing is to see who's going to have the larger
numbers whether the National Party or the Liberal Party are going
to have the ' larger number of members. it's not quite certain at this
stage I suppose it will be pretty bare I guess. But he'll wait and
see who got the most and I suppose he would then plump for..
He's got some formidable opposition. I mean if he decided to go
National held had to overcome that popular political hero, Mr Sinclair,
now that's a task. But if he decides~ that the Liberals have got a.
few more than the National Party, then he's got line up against
several of them looking for the leadership. I mean Mr Peacock wants
to hang on to it, Mr Howard wants it, there are a number of othersi.
So I don't know where held go, what he'd do. Blut as I say it's all
hypothetical. Mr Reeves has been a brilliant member for the Northern
Territory and will continue to be so.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, why are Mr Stone's forecasts for next year
wrong? Well let's say, I'm using a bit of historical analysis here,
I don't know why people should assume that every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of Stone has sort of been regarded as eternal truth.
All I can say is that I have to sit in the Cabinet Room at the end
of December last year when we discussed a major issue in regard ' to
the running of the economy of this country. That is the floating of
the dollar. Now everyone has recognised that this is probably the
mst important decision taken by the Government. We were right and
recognise we were right. Mr Stone opposed it. And in opposing It
predicted that if we floated it the dollar would go upwards causing
the sorts of problems associated with that movement* Well, need I
say more.
JOURNALIST: Well does it make his forecasts for next year wrong?
Well I'm just saying your questions seemed to based upon the
proposition that because Mr Stone said something it must be right.
I'm simply saying that his track record is not brilliant. But-let
me say this, I don't really want to get into the area of Mr Stone.
You are raising it it's not a matter of conern to me. He's teen
there, he's been at the Head of Treasury and the record of this;
economy in that period was abysmal. Now he can say, well it wasnl't
just him, it was the politicians Mr Howard. Well, I mean I don't
mind eith~ er way. In a sense all I'm saying is that the result
was disastrous and we were under a lot of pressure when we camoa to
P. M. cont...: Government as you will recall to got rid of Mr Stone.
Now I and the Treasurer said no, we're not going to do that. We're
going to give him the opportunity of staying there. We gave him that
opportunity. Now he's made the decision to go. While he was there!
he made a great deal of the need for the public service to be
apolitical, the integrity of the public service. Now that seems to
be something that rather escapes his attention at the moment. ' Tho
election is not going to be about the observations of Mr Stone.
JOURNALIST: On the aspect of'his remarks he wasn't just talking
about the economy he talked about the Tapes Affair, immigration.
Do you think Mr Stone is trying to carve out his own political
place, be what it may?
Well that would be interesting. There" is talk that after
this election that with a considerable victory for the Government ' that
there are going to be some new forces-of the right shaping a new
Party. Well perhaps he is trying to carve out his constituency of
the right. Well that's alright. I mean if Mr Stone wants to form
or be part of a new political Party and come into the Parliament I'd
welcome him there. It would be great fun.
JOURNALIST: Mr H1awke should he stay out of this election campaign
and leave it to the politicians.
No, no. Let me be quite clear. You people have raised Mr Stone.
I'm totally relaxed about Mr Stone as you will remember as I was when
he had his other little sort of outburst in Perth. I'm just as relaxed
about this one.
JOURNALISTs The difference now, Sir, is that this is an election
campaign. Shoud he be staying out of it.
No I'm not saying that he should be staying out of it. I'm
simply making the point that when in the public service there was
no public servant, senior public servant, who was more dogmatic
about the need for the public service to be apolitical. He attacked
anyone who did anything in Government which suggested that you were
bringing the public service into politics. Now while he was still
there in the latter stages he seemed to forget all those stringent
lectures and principles and he seems to be now feelin that just
recently out of the public services he can get fully involved. Now
I'm simply pointing out the contrast with that involvement with th., e
sort of standards he was talking about before. And it's impossible
for him to be making statements about the economy now without brin". Lng
into it his knowledge and involvement as a public servant. Now
he accepted the standards before, but he seems to be wanting to be
elastic about them nowi. So be it. I am relaxed about anything he wants
to say. We'll deal with the issues on their merits. And if there's
one issue upon which we want the election to be fought it's the
economic record of this Government against the economic record of
the alternative Government. Because there is no period since the
Great Depression of the 1930' s where this economy was brought more
to its knees than under our Liberal/ National Party predecessors in
office and with Mr Stone as Head of the Treasury. Now we told the
P. M. cont
people of A\ ustralia that under our policies we would turn that
round. We did, from stagnant economic growth we've moved this
to the fastest growing economy in the world. We've created a
quarter of a million new jobs. we've halved inflation. We've brought
interest rates down. So if they want to talk about the economy that's
exactly what we want. And we'll talk about it every day until
December 1st.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke one of the things that Mr Stone says about
tax is that indirect taxes must go up quite sharply if you were to
fund your deficit of next year. What is your attitude to a rise
in indirect taxes?
Well let me go in two stages to that. -We don't have to
be hypothetical. We've been in office since the beginning of 1983,
We've had the May statement, we've had-the Budget for 83/ 84, and we've
had the Budget brought down in August this year for 84/ 85. Now you
look at what we've done. What we've done there is to reduce the
deficit by $ 3 billion. What we were looking at was $ 9.6 billion that
we inherited. We brought it down to $ 8.4 billion in 83/ 84 and
then this year we've brought it down to $ 6.7 billion. In other words
we've brought the deficit down by $ 3 billion. At the same time as
doing that we've introduced tax cuts now which will take effect in
a couple of weeks time tax cuts for everyone. And we've got the
position where out tax take is a smaller percentage of GDP than the
two record tax takes of the last two Liberal/ National governments.
Now we don't have to be hypothetical. we've taken a lesser tax
take than our predecessors, reduced the Budget deficit and given
tax cuts. So that's what we've done. And we've indicated, both
the Treasurer and myself, that as we go now into the next period we
will do these things we will further reduce the deficit, an
unqualified commitment; we will do that in a situation of no
increase in the overall level of taxes. And thirdly, and following that,
we have indicated we'll do that by undertaking that the growth in
expenditures will be less than the rate of economic growth. Now that
is real world economics. We've shown it in fact that we can do it,
we've done it, we'll continue to do it. That's real world economics,
it's not the flat earth economics which has been foisted by Mr Peacock
in this insult to the intelligence of the Australian electorate.
JOURNALIST: Are you saying you won't need an increase in indirect.
taxes to achieve a lower deficit?
what we have said is that we will look at the whole question
of the tax base and that is something which the conservative side
of politics has said will need to be done. it's a matter of
common understanding across the political and economic spectrum that
there will need to be a review of the tax base. But if there weret
a situation where there was some increase or enlargement of the
indirect tax base you wouldn't do that without a reduction in the
direct tax base. But what we have done in running this economy
since March of 1983 is not to sit up in Canberra and say, look,
there's the answer, we know what's right. We have deliberately
consulted with the commnunity, with the business community, large and
small busines, and with the trade unions, with welfare organisations
we've done that and out of those processes of consultation we havo
evolved economic policies which have turned this country around from
stagnation to the fastest growth in the world and with equity. NOW
what has been successful in terms of that economic approach since
v, 7q. t . c
P. M. cont... March of ' 83 will be precisely the sort of approach thast
we will adopt after the election in regard to taxation as well as
in regard to economic policies generally.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister do you have a timetable for when and
if the Northern Territory should have Statehood.
No, what you've got to realise is this, that they came to
self government from 1 July 1978. Now look at the facts it's a
population of ( tape break) full statehood tomorrow.
Because full statehood involves certain obligations and commitments
if you're going to have full statehood. Now I would believe that
the sensible thing to do is that a consultation with the member,
who as I say will continue to be Mr Reeves, and with the Northern
Territory Government, that through time we sh6uld talk about the
timetableswhich they think are appropriate. 8ecause full statehood,
as I say, involves not only rights whi-ch are attractive, but it
also involves obligations which at times are not so attractive.
And so my approach in Government will be to say to the people and
the Government of the Northern Territory, well let's talk together
about what your timetable is, what you think is the most appropriate,
rather than seeking to impose some upon them.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister when you addressed the ILO in Geneva well
over a year ago now you put forward the idea of communes or kibbutzes
I didn't use the word commune or kibbutz. I mean that's the
shorthand used by others.
JOURNALIST: Well the idea has recently been taken up again by
Senator Robertson and I was wondering if the Government has shelved
it or whether it was still a goer.
No, we've done some work on this. I've had people working
on it. it's still going on. I believe, however, that this is not;
an idea that should be rushed into. I mean I could have been quite
autocratic, if you like, and got the thing going earlier. 3 Ut it
seems to me that we need to have a broader discussion about the
whole concept of employment programs and economic growth and whether
people really want to have that sort of development as part of a
general approach to and attack upon the problems of unemployment.
So it's there. Discussions are going on. But I want the community
to have an ample and relaxed opportunity to talk about this.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke will the Goverment be clarifying the land
rights issue before the election.
Well when you say clarify the land rights issue, I don't
believe that you're going to be able to clarify the land rights
issue before the election. What we will do, however, what we'll
continue to do, is that the Minister and myself, and I'm fairly
deeply involved in the processes, will continue what we've been doing
in the last few months. we've been talking with an aboriginal
steering committee. We've been talking-with AMICp the miners. wel've
been talking with the National Farmers Federation, we've been talking
with the States. Because I have the view, if you like, the great;
hope, that this issue can be turned from one which is divisive and
has been-divisive into one around which the Australian people can
take pride... I havc the feeling that underneath some of the rhetoric
that has been going on, some of the passions that have been arouised
P. M. cant...: that overwhelmingly Australians believe that we have
obligations towards the Aboriginal people. And I take, in that
respect, comfort from the overwhelming decision of the Australian
people in 1967, by a great majority they voted to give the Federal
Commonwealth Government responsibilities in this area. Now the
people of Australia in 1967 didn't do that lightly. I think in
making that decision, and you know how reluctant the Australian
people are to change the Constitution, in doing that I think they
reflected then a view that we as a people as a whole had obligations
in this area. Now at the same time the people have come to recognise
that it's not just a question of saying this is what we do for
the aborigines. we have to do it in a way which will carry the
Australian people as a whole with them. Because the worst thing
you could do for the aboriginal people of Australia would be to seek
through the exercise of that Federal power, which the people of
Australia gave to the Federal Government, the worst thing you could
do to the Aboriginal people is say there is that power which the
people gave to us, we're going just to unilaterally to impose that
and then in that process have a situation where the people of Australia
were not satisfied with the way it had been done. So the is that
you should have a Federal Government being prepared to talk with the
States, with the Territory, with people who can be affected like mi~ ners
and farmers, as well as of course the aboriginal people themselves.
So what we're going to do is continue that process and in the event:,
I believe it will be possible to have the people of Australia in
1985 reflecting through those processes the wish that they expressed
in 1967, almost twenty years ago, that there should be a Commonwealth
responsibility in this matter.
JOURNALIST: Will the Federal Government give a commitment before
the election to retain the veto on mining..
We will be talking with the people of the Northern Territory
about that. I mean it would be a contradiction of what I said
before that we're going to have consultations and X pre-empt
consultations by saying what the decisions are.
7; 3K