PLEME MINUSTER
TRANCPERSITS ~ rU MADELAIDE, 20 October 1984
A 0 ERl~ PRFSS
Well the campaign is into the very-interesting phase.
We now have Mt Peacock and Mr Howard and Mr Sinclair as the
* guardians of the family. They canit quite make up their mind
who is the greatest moral custodian of all. I see that Mr Howard
is attacking Mr Sinclair for his claims that Mr Sinclair is the
greatest moral custodian in the country. Mr Howard says that
he and Mr Peacock are equally great moral custodians. ' Well I think
the people are going to make their judgements about that sort of
nonsense. Again, I keep coming back to the point that our
opponents insist on insulting the intelligence of the electoratte.
They say that they are the protectors of the family.-. Who do t~ hey
think suffered under the 7 years of Liberal and National Party
Government. Did the increase of hundreds of thousands in
unemployed, particularly amongst the young people. Did they come
from outer Mars or did they not come from Australian families'?
The Australian families suffered their greatest onslaught in -the
post war history under the degenerate Government and economic
mismanagement of Messrs Howard, Peacock and Sinclair. Whether~
you look in the area of unemployment, of lost living standards
opportunities, whether you look in the area of health -where when we
came to office some two million people, niot living on Mars i-n some
isolated communities, two million people in Australian families
not covered in respect of health and medical insurance. The
Australian family suffered its greatest onslaught in post-war
history under-these people. And what we have done in Government
is in each of these areas where the family's suffered we have
turned Australia round. Australian families are now better
off because unemployment h-as been reduced from 10.3% to 8.6%.
Australian families are better off because of the change around
from the growth of unemployment by a quarter of a million-in the
last twelve months of our predecessors to the increase of 260,000
jobs. under us Australian families are better off because we
now have comprehensive and equitable cover for health and medical
insurance. Australian families are better off now because we
have'a housing industry which instead of operating at some
of capacity has now brought the opportunity of homes to tens
of thousands of Australian families that never had the opportunity
of housing under the previous Government. That's in the private
housing sector. Australian families are better off because we
increased public funding for housing by 50% in our first Budget.
Australian families are better off because we have reduced inflation
from 11.2% to less than half of that. You'askc Australian families
what hurts them. It's high and unctrolled inflation. Australian
families are better off because we've reduced interest rates
including mortgage interest rates. Now it doesn't matter what
area you want to look at which directly-impinge upon Australi~ an
V 4
2.
P. M. cont families. By any measure all Australian families
are better off under this Goverinent since 5 March of 1983. So
if Mr Peacock and Mr Sinclair and Mr Howard can take time off from
fighting amongst themselves as to who is thc greater moral
guardian, and they want to talk about families and things that
impact upon families we'll do that every day up until the election.
And of course as if that's not enough Australian families could
look forward to a return to the economic mismanagement and
disasters of those previous years if, and of course I talk
hypothetically, these people were to come back.* Becuse you k: n-ow
that I've talked about flat-e * arth economics. I told you about
the blow-out of the deficit which was already indicated by the
sorts of things that they were talking ah~ out before. But we
pick up today's papers and what do we fin~ d the dam. The dam
in Tasmania. We've fixed up the Vituation down there. We' 1ve
healed the division, we've undertaken compensation to Tasmania.
And Mr Peacock went down there and of course the great strategy
that he had outlined seemed to come unstuck. Because he started
off his conference and said well, the dam's been fixed
Compensation's been paid. Then he got a short arm jab in the ribs
fromr Mr Gray and so he changed tactics. Oh no, of course, if we
wore to come back you could have your dam. Well it's a nice
old pattern that's emerging. I negotiate with Mr Gray in good
faith. He publicly announces that. I have met all my obligations
and promises that I've made in respect of Tasmania. But now
he's saying, no, we would undo it and go ahead with the dam under
a Liberal/ National Party Government. And for good measure he's
indicated that wouldn't give back the fir7st payments of compensation
that I've made. Well how does anyone takeo any notice of a gaggle
of incompetents like that. But that's not enough because he's
going to pay for the dam. But Mr Sinclair has to try and make
his mark too. So what's his contribution? He's going to have
four nuclear submarines. Well what's he going to pay for
four nuclear submarines. He's got about $ 7 billion additional
blow-out in his deficit so far before they got going in their
last couple of days of desperation. But now it's the dam. And
now it's for nuclear submarines. At this rate by the time we've
reached the end of the election campaign we'll have a deficit
under these hypothetical people of about $ 20 billion. They are
unstoppable. But it's going to be interesting isn't it to see
in the days ahead with all these new promnises of outl'ays where
they're going to cut existing programs. Are they going to cut
other defence programs? Are they going to cut education? Are*
they going to cut community employment programs? Where are they
going to cut by these billions of dollars to make way for the
dam in Tasmania and the four nuclear submarines.
JOURNALIST: Your colleagues in Now South Wales seem concerncd
about the capital gains tax issue. Do you share their concern
that this could be a liability for the Labor Party?
No, on the contrary. I repeat what I told you in the,
last couple of days. I am happy abou t having tax and all its
ramifications in the forefront of this election campaign.
P. M. cont... And if they try to walk away from it in the days
and the weeks ahead, I will take them back to taxation. No, I'm
not concerned about this at all.
JOURNALIST: figure Prime Minister is that $ 20 billion deficit.
Well that may be conservative because, I mean, just in one
day we've had the dam and we've had four nuclear submarines. well
at that rate, I mean $ 20 billion extra blow-out looks a bit
conservative. I mean that's not bad for one day's effort is it?
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister on the submacrine question would a Labor
Government ever equip its defence forces with nuclear submarines?
No we've made it quite clear we see no reason for going
C nvclear. And it's interesting to see today, in today's press, that
the relevant spokesman for the armied forces has said that it is
quite inappropriate and that the diesel powered submarines that
we will be moving to under our existing plan are appropriate and
adequate for Australian purposes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you campaign so far seems ratheir reactive.
when is it going to become positive.
Well you say it's reactive. But look at the things that we've
been talking about. You see when you've provided good government,
when you've turned the economy around, when you've got Australia
together in a way it hasn't been before in recent memory, you.
simply remind the people of what's going now as compared to what
they had under the Liberals. And for reasons which I won't ever
quite be able to understand my Liberal and National Party opponents
seem committed and dedicated with each day in this early stages
of the campaign of reminding the people of Australia that they
want to take them back to the divisiveness and the incompetence
of the past. I've told you about the fiscal irresponsibility-now,
but we see, we are reminded that they are going to get rid of
TAA1 they are going to get rid of Qantas, they are going to rid
of the Commonwealth Bank that's going to be of interest to the
millions of Australians who are involved in the Commonwealth Bank.
They want to keep saying that they are going to take us back to the
days of the past. Of course I'm going to react to that. Of course
I'm going to tell the people of Australia, look what you're being
promised, more of the same. Do you want that again?
JOURNALIST: Mr H-awke are you confident -that you reassured some
of your nervous N. S. W. colleagues about the capital gains tax.
Oh, I believe so, yes...
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister to what degree are going to try to
exploit division between the coalition parties. Is that going to
be a theme?
4.
Oh well, I'm going to try and stifle my grin and amusement
as I watch from the sidelines as they sharpen their knives at
one another. it's going to be interesting I think. I'd recommend
to you who are following the campaign to look closely into Mr Shipton'!
seat and Mr Macphee's seat because I would think that you'd find
some beautiful lines down there. I think it's Babette Francis
isn't it who thinks that Mr Shipton is a trendy I guess. He's too
way out radical. I guess you'll find some marvellous lines in that
electorate. You'll find some marvellous lines in the scat of
Goldstein and Mr Macphee. They've started off we11l. and I won't
be in there stirring. And I think they have enough ' animus against
one another to make it very interesting already. It's early
days yet and look how they're going. Z
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister did yoxi mean to say, did you mean
to describe the previouis Government as degenerate.
Yes, degenerate. I mean it really lost any they had
started to decompose in terms of the their capacity to uinderstand
basic economics or to display any competence whatsoever in
economic management. I mean they are flat-earthers. But you
would have thought wouldn't you after the debacle of reducing
the Australian economy to its knees and having seen how we've turned
it round into the fastest growing economy in the wor-ld that they
would have had enough neus to say well, we were wrong and
we should reform our thin king and regenerate our thinking.
But they haven't. I mean really what they are about is worse than
anything they did before. They are going to increase expenditures.
The other one I forgot to mention I told you about the dam
and I told you about the nuclear submarines but in their
detailed defence exposition they were also talking about the
Alice Springs to Darwin railway. So throw another $ 1 billion, they've
just confirmed another $ 1 billion. This is the craziest set of
propositions you've heard in your life. Just think about it
nuclear submarines, the dam, the Alice Springs to Darwin railway.
As I say, the weeks ahead are going to be fascinating. They are
going to blow out expenditures like that. They are going to
reduce taxes. So that's mean the deficit's going up and up
like that. Unless one thing happens that for all these
additional billions and billions and billions of dollars of
new expenditure, they are going to cut at least that amount out
of existing programs. -* So I hope that you'll be asking them day
after day alright, you've told us all these billions of dollars
of additional expenditure, you've told us you're also going to
cut taxes please, please Mr Howard, please Mr Peacock, please
Mr Sinclar, tell us where you're going to cut the billions of
dollars on existing programs. Otherwise, if they can't do that, if
they can't, well where's the money coming from. What are the new
taxes. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister business deregulation. Could you
be a bit more specific and outline what sort of deregulation you're
talking about and particularly what camne uip at the'discussions at
the Business Council.
Yes we had a very useful discussion. We had the
representatives there of the Business Council of Australia, the
confederation of Australian Industry, the Associated Chambers
of Commerce of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation and
the ACTU. And what I said to them is that I had the impression
since being in Government that we did have a situation where after
84 years there'd just been allowed to remain on the statute books
an amount of legislation and regulation which may have been
appropriate at the time, but wasn't now. And I said to them I
know that you have this view, but it's obvious that, you, each
of you will be better acquainted with theproblems ii ' your area.
So I said to them well you go away, address yourself to this issue
as you see the problems in your area, and-come back to us I
nominated a senior public servant who would be co-ordinating
our own work in this area and they-agreed that this would be the
best way of doing it. That they should address themselves to it
and we will then meet again after the election on the basis
of the detailed work they'Id done. To the extent that they want to
remain in consultation with our own people while they're doing that,
then I've nominated the liaison point. And we'll meet after ': he
election. We would then understand that in respect of the areas
that may be of concern to business, they'd have detailed listings
of regulations and laws which either demonstrably serve no us ful
purpose now or needed some form of modification. Nbw-they agreed
that that is the best way of going about it. We agree with that
and I'm certain that on that basis, as we go through 1985, we'll
be able to strip away a lot of this unnecessary regulation that
exists. JOURNALIST: particularly that you would like to see.
No, because it's just that one gets the impression, without
going to details, that you hear a regulation mentioned or a ]. aw
that's operative and you just wonder I can't help wondering
whether that is in fact relevant and now serving a useful purpose.
And you get the impression in talking with business people that that'Ec
what they feel. But obviously they have a better idea from their
day to day experiences as to what comes into that category.
JOURNALIST: Ho0w specifically h-ave you allayed the concern of~
Mr Keating and. other members of the N. S. W. ALP that capital gains
could become a damaging political issue?
Well, how specific? I mean I've just spoken with them
and I think they share my view that the way in which the Liberals
and the National Parties are going that they arc just with each
passing day making themselves even more incredible in the area
of tax than they were before the election campaign started. And
we all take the view that with the release of the" policies" of the
Liberal and National Parties on Monday we'll be stepping up the
attack in the taxation area and not the Libs.
J'OURNALIST: Mr Hawke will you hold a tax summit next year?
It's conceivable, yes. I've indicated that. It is con~ ceivable
JOURNALIST: With the casino decision yesterday in the Northern
Territory. Will that affect South Australia. One of the applicants..
No, it won't affect South Australia, no.