ae
PRIME MINISTER
PRESS CONFERENCE LABOR HOUSE, BRISBANE, 24 OCTOBER, 1984
E 9 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you are ndfdoubt aware of the
latest opinion poll which shows that Andrew Peacock is less
favoured as Opposition Leader than John Howard and even
Malcolm Fraser. Can you see him going the same way as
perhaps Bill Hayden did a few months ago.
PM: Far be it for me to interfere in the problems of the
Liberal Party. But it was interesting to see that John Howard
and Malcolm Fraser were preferred in front of Mr Peacock and
I found fascinating the interview with Mr Fraser. He obviously
is thinking about coming back. He is not satisfied with the
state of the Party thd~ t he abandoned. But that's a problem
for them. I just as an interested spectator, watch the declino
within the Liberal Party, the fight between the Liberal Party
and the National Party, at the national level. And, of course,
here in Queensland the fascinating picture of the distancing biy
Ejelke-Petersen from the federals. They are a very unhappy
bunch of pilgrims, and I am sure that the people of Queensland
will draw the appropriate conclusion from the fact that as
against the cohesive Labor Party team that is offered to them,
you have got these brawling bunch of conservatives.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, do you have any-explanation for
why the Labor Party intended vote fell 5% in the Morgan Gallup
Poll and the conservative vote went up 3%.
PM: I have said for some fime now that I thought that that
which itself was a jump of 5 percentage points from 50, reflected
some pretty immediate, unusual factors. I have felt that wheret
we are now is a couple of points above where we were at the 19813
election. And that's what today's poll shows. That would give us
a significant increase in seats in the federal parliament. And I
think we can probably inprove on that position during the campaign.
JOURNALIST: * So you are not worried by that
PM: Oh, if I had said that the St jump the previous week, taking
us from 50 to 55, and I thought that's it, then of course I'd be
worried. But having said when it happened. that that was an
aberration, then by definition I am not worried by the return
to the normal, which normal position has us significantly ahead
of our position in 1983.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what are those pretty immediate,
inusual factors that you mention. K
Fli oh, I think you had the concentration in the Parliament
on the personal smear tactics that were being pursued by the
Opposition. There were some personal factors involving myself
at that time, and I think that these thing& perhaps concentrated
some attentipn then. But I made it quite clear at the time that
X thought i~ at we'were running comfortably ahead of our position
of 683. And that is wha t the position shows now, and I think that
that will improv9. between now and December let.
JOURNALIST: Do you believe Malcolm Fraser has anything ufieful
to offer the Australian political scene?
PHI Well, ina some respects he has something useful to demonstrate
to the Liberal Party in its current leadership because, and I said
this at the time, Mr Fraser did have certain principles to which
he adhered in the area of race and aborigines, I just mention those
things. He took certain standards of p rinciple and he adhered to
-hnmn. Now Mir Peacock, hio ctjgvocoor, ohowa ne preparedneee&
adhere Lo, pxiiuil1 at all, and it is little reason tor surprise
therefore that you have the judgemuents being made about the
current leader of the opposition and have this remarkabla posit-ion
that rnot only does he have his deputy leader being ranked above
him but his predecessor, who has left the Parliament, is being
desired by more people as the leader than Mr Peacock.
JOURNALIST: Well giving your thoughts on Malcolm Fraser's principles
would you welcome his return?
PM: Oh I was sorry about his departure. I would be happy to see
him back. I mean, I felt a little bit cheated, if you like, at
not having the opportunity of having the head to head in the
Parliament. JOURNALIST: Prime minister, given the call for Senator Button's
removal from his portfolio
PM: By whom?
JOURNALIST; Are you satisfied..
PM: By one official New South Wales official of a federal branch.
I mean, I just want to got clear the enormity of the demand, the
breadth of the demand for Iris removal.
JOURNALIST: Given -that, can you give5 a guarantee that he will
retain that portfolio?
PM: Of course I can. I mean I have got to say, first of all,
that the processes of the caucuses have to be followed. I am
assuming that he will be re-elected by the caucuses and of
course he will. And I think he has done exceptionally well
in that area.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, there is a report in the paper
today about an opinion poll on the Nuclear Disarmament Party
which shows that it has quite strong support in at least 3
states. Do you think that strong support for the Nuclear
Disarmament Party is showing some failure on your part to
reassure Australia..
PH: It s very hard to draw that conclusion unless you want to
PM conts and of course I know people start off wanting to draur
certain conclusions. Our support ia high, not only for the
Party but for myself. We are not going down. So I don't knout
what, as a matter of logic, what leads you to youar conclusion.
If our support had been going down, and my support had been going
down, then: perhaps there would be some logical basis for your
question. But as the logical basis is not there I don't moe
how you get to the conclusion.
JOURNALIST: Do you feel under any sort ot pressure to come
up with specifics Boon in the area of tax?
PM8 No, I don't feel under any pressure. I have made it quite
clear well before the election oampaign started as to what our
approach on an overhaul of the tax system was. I am aware of
the feeling of the people of Australia.' And they have a very
Justifiable feeling that the tax syste~ which has grown up
under years of conservative rule, and Iremind you that 30 of
the last 35 years tax has been under the conservatives. And it
has emerged as a very unfair system. And in more reeent years
remarkably unfair because of the deliberate refusal of the
conservatives to smash the tax avoidance industry. T11at has
meant a great super tax upon the citizens. So they think it
is unfair and they are right. They think taxes overall are
generally to high on the average tax payer. They are right.
so what I have been saying is that we will. initiate the debate
on an overall of the tax system. We have started that. That
has been going for some within EPAC, and I have said as we
have got into the election campaign, that after the election
we will continue that and broaden the debate. Now I have been
saying that consistently. As there have been some misrepresent~ ations
by our desperate, fearmongering opponents, I have made it clear
earlier in the campaign that in the near future I will make a
statement on this matter. I will and I invite you to be there,
Heather, you will be very interested.
JOURNIALIST% Prime minister, I wonder if you could comment please
on claims by the Premier about if the Bill of Rights is implemented
that States rights will be overrided, and homosexual marriages
sanctioned, abortion legalised, and so on.
PM:. Well, I think we can Judge how much you should attribute to.
my good friend Joh's hyperbole, if I can put it that, by the
repudiation which has been made of him, that no Christians can
vote for me, or for the Labor Party. Now that is the sort of
measure of how much substance you attach to Joh's statement in
an election campaign. He gives himself full licence, opens full
throttle on hyperbole during an election campaign. And he has
in regard to what he is saying on the Bill of Rights, which is
no more than a broad statement outlining basis for consideration
and Joh knows that he is not speaking accurately on this matter.
He doesn't take himself seriously on it, so why should I.
JOURNALISTt Andrew Peacock has been gaining quite strong
reception from the pensioners..
PM, Oh yes tremendous reception, he had 350) people, 350 pension-era
he had in the Sydney Town Hall, an enormous response. 350?
Look I was in Devonport the day before, and I had what, were
you there, yes I think you were. WEll I had between a hundred
and 200 in Devonport, in Tasmania. if all t: hat Mr Peacock can
get is 350 and you are prepared to give that as evidence of the
ceoat support he in getting, then that suitti me Ciz~ e.
JOURNALISTs ARe you confident though that. there won't be an
electoral back-lash on the Assets Test?
PM: Yes I am certain of it. Because, if you like saying that
Tasmania is npt part of Australia, I mean that was the story
early in the week, that they are different. Now the Sydneysiders
are not part of Australia. I mean, where is Australia. It's,
I take the view that arouhd'Australia generally there is an
increasing understanding of the fact which will become more clear
as the forms go out that 98%, 98% of pensioners are not going
to affected by the Assets TEst. Now statistics are there, you
can't manipulate those statistics and it will be clear that
through time, the majority of pensioners are going to be
better off because we impose an Assets Test which Assets Test
the concept is supported by whom? Supported by Mr Peacock when
he was able to speak the truth as he saw, it as a backbencher in
1981. Supported by Mr Howard, unquestio'nably Mr Howard supports
the concept of an Assets Test. Senator Chaney, when he was
Shadow Spokesman, supported it. The Young Liberals have made
it quite clear that they support it. The Business Council of
Australia said that any group, any political group, which sought
to undermine the Assets Test was doing a grave disservi -ce to
the country. In other words, right across the spectrum of
Australia, including in large sections of the pensioner
population spokesperson themselves, there is the recognition
that a government must have the decency and the courage to
clear the way for it, to do as much as it can for the overwhelming
majority of pensioners who need and deserve the assistance of the
community. Now, as distinct from the conservatives in this country,
I have never feared the intelligence of the Austalian electorate.
I have never tried to delude them with the tactics of fear
and smear and misrepresentation. And it's because I trust
the intelligence of the Australian electorate that I draw the
conclusions on this point that I do.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you worried that. here in
Queensland that Premier Sir Joh Bielke-Petersen may be ready
to pull out a few dirty tricks during the campaign.
PM: No I am not the one that should be worried about Joh's
dirty tricks, it's Andrew and Ian Sinclair who are quivering
in their boots. They don't k~ now how they are going to get
through the next 5 weeks with Joh. They really don't. I
mean they don't know-whether he is going to sort of renege
on his situation where he said early in the year he didn't
want to appear on the same platform with them, they don't
know whether he is going to appear with them or not. He is
obviously repudiated their tax policies. Andrew and Ian don't
know what sort of a blast they are going to get from in the
area of tax and economic policy. I am not worried about the
Premier, I get on very well with him. I mean, in our negotiations
and discussions he starts off and huffs and puffs a bit and
makes some noises, then we sit down and have a cup of tea and wo
work things out. Medicare, look at all the huffing and puffing
that went on. But finally, he sat down, wo worked it out.
His real venom is kept for the federal Liberals and National
Party. lHe just can't see eye to eye with t: hem at all.*
JOURNALIST: He has already taken a couple ok swipes at you
over the Bill of Rights and the Christianity question hasn't he?
r * l
PM: Yeah, and if he wants to go on having a sw ipe about
Christianity, that's okay. As I said, what Job does when he
gets into an election situation, he puts hyperbole into top gear,
and sprays a bit, but he quite clearly doesn't believe half of
what he says,, bimself. I mean he has his tongue in his cheek
a bit. But he doesn't have his tongue in his cheek when he
is attacking the federal Liberals and the federal National PartN.
They are the ones.. that he has got sights on.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the tax area. DCo you agree in principle
to the concept of tax deductibility
PM: Look I have said to you quite clearly that we will be makirig
our statement on our approach on taxation within the near future.
JOURNALIST: Do you have a personal view?
PM: Look I have personal views on the tone of your suit. But
I don't think it is very relevant at the moment, and the shape
of your glasses, are that shatterproof?
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, will that statement be made
before or after the election?
PM: Before the election. I don't how whether, I must have
lost my capacity to express myself clearly. I said the near
future and everyone knows that that will be within a matter of
days. As to our approach. Let me make it clear, that we have
been saying that we are going to be taking the community fully
into our confidence on this matter. We are not going to be
determining these matters now. We are not going to be imposing
decisions on the Australian electorate of them being able to fully
consult with us, put their views about what the overhaul of the
tax system should be. And what I will be doing, I will be indicating
how we will be going about bringing the people into that process.
JOURNALIST: The Land Rights Question. You said in Tasmania,
that you wouldn't introduce the Land Rights Bill until the states
had been consulted. If, for instance, Queensland
PM: Sounds terribly like a hypothetical coming up, doesn't it?
JOURNALIST: extensive consultation the Queensland Government
they wouldn't introdjuce the Bill and conform to your principles,
would you impose a land rights bill on them?
PM: You didn't disappoint me. It's a hypothetical and you know
my strict rules on those. I don't answer them.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, are you concerned that with the
continued ebbing of Mr Peacock's popularity, are you concerned
that it may turn around and become a flood tide.
PM: A flood tide, that sounds a bit like my old friend, Sir
Billy Mcl~ ahon in Washington there comes a time and a tide and
and the ebb tide goes and you know he got a bit lost. I'm not
sure what you mean. Is it going to..
JOURNALIST: AS it is going down it may come to a point where it
will stop and turn around and come back again.
A. L 0 \. DL Lu r r, 4 ( o P. U 2
6.
PHI Well I don't know, it has been going steadily. I would think
there must come a point when it doesn't go down just a minute
wait a minute, I am in the middle of answering this one. Gee,
you have got rough rules up here.
JOURNALIST: ' Watch the cricket balls.
PM:. Yeah. Keep your eye on the question. No I haven't I am
Just getting by laughter here. what I am saying is that
I guess there must come a point where you can't go down any
further. I mean he has already created a record. Now I would
think, there must come a point when it stops and there will be
some recovery. No, no come on, not fair.
JOURNALIST: ARe you concerned, Prime Minister, that because
Mr Peacock's popularity is so low, some swinging voters might
vote Liberal because of the secure and certain knowledge that
he i-s going to got dumped after the-election.
PM: Oh, no I wouldn't think that would be part of the thinking
of' any voters. The Liberal Party is pretty consistent about the
way they handle these things. And there tends to be an-assumption
that he will go, but I think no, again, you tend to, as so many
people do, in commenting on politcs to ridicule the electorate
are going to be making up their mind on how to vote on the basis
of comparing the record of this government with the record of
opponents when they were last in government. And they are going
to be looking at how we have performed, how we have turned this
country around, how they are all better off as a result of this
government, as compared with the alternatives. And I think that
is what is overwhelmingly going to be in the minds of the
Australian electorate.
JOURNALIST: PriMe Minister, yesterday in Tasmania you were
attacking Mr Howard for advocating the winding of the tax
base into indirect taxes because of the pressure it would
put on inflation. Do we take it from that that any Government
initiated review of the tax system would exclude winding of the
tax base at this stage into indirect taxes?
PM. Well as I say I will be addressing myself to this issue
shortly of our approach. But I can say two things at this
point. We would not be rushi~ ng into some particular change
in the tax system, without having the detailed opportunity
provided to the people of Australia and their organisations
to address themselves to it. That is point one. Point two,
that it is important that under the Liberals and National
Party, they have of course concocted, and that is the right
word, this series of wishes about taxation without relating
it to the rest of economic policy. And that means that there
is no way that any move towards indirect taxation under the
Liberals could mean other than a significant increase in inflation
because they would have no basis of agreement with the unions for
any discounting of increases in prices which would inevitably
associated with their policy. Now we are, of course, in a quite
distinct position in that our tax policies are related to our
general economic policies and would be part of the consultative
process with business and with the trade unions so that if there
were any move in that direction it would be as a result of full
consultation and in a way which would inhibit adverse inflationary
impact.
7.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, this ia a somewhat local issue.
But the Brisbane City Council Opposition has asked whether the
Government intends to state whether it's going to support Brisbane's
effort for the 1992 Olympics before the election.
Well they' are going to make a formal approach for the
1992 Olympics then we would consider that.
JOURNALIST: They are. The Council's going ahead with
Yes, but what I'm saying, the question of the Commonwealth's
position depends upon an approach from the Council and if it's -the
State Government as well, to the Commonwealth Government saying well
look, we're going to ' make this formal approach what's your
position. well if we get that we'll obviously consider and if
we took the step of supporting and they were successful then they
would have obviously the full support of; the Australian Government.
JOURNALIST; I understand they've already done that.
Done what?
JOURNALIST: They've made that approach to the Federal Government.
Well, what for our support for an approach?
JOURNALIST: For funds.
But the approach for funds to hold-the Olympics. I mean they
haven't got the Olympics.
JOURNALIST; They need the assurance that funds will be forthcoming
before they can make the approach.
Well what I'm saying to you now quite clearly is this -that
the people of Queensland can be assured that if the proper processes
for applying for the Olympics are followed and they seek our
involvement and it goes down the path of an actual application being
made, which hasn't been done, then of course the Australian
Government will be supportive.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister since the issue has been raised by the
State Premier which issue?
JOURNALIST: I'm getting to that.
Oh, I see.
JOURNALIST: Are you prepared to restate your own personal views on
religion and
The answer is no on that. I am not going to demean the
political processes by insulting the intelligence of the Australian
electorate. The official spokespersons for the organised churches
of Australia have done that. L UU ..
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in your much awaited. taxation statement
would you be outlining what in effect would be the terms of
reference for the review or principles the Government would liket
to see, or glik-re us'a program for community involvement in the review?
Well I think if I'm going to have a press conference to o~ utline
these things it'sjpretty silly tactics to do it before the Press
Con ference.-
JOURNALIST: Mr Hlawke can I clear up something about the Accord.
A couple of weeks ago you said that business might be involved more
closely in the Accord and then Mr Willis said something slightly
different. Do we know now whether business is going to be
involved directly in the Accord?
No, that was an attempt to beat up some semantic difference
at the time and it died the very natural death that it obviously
deserved. It had not legs for the running that particular
situation. I'm surprised that you're trying to revivify it. The
situation's quite clear. The formal accord is an accord between
the trade union movement and the Labor Government it was originally
when we were in opposition, and it became between the trade union
movement and the Labor Government. That's the formal accord and it
will remain between the trade union movement and the Government.
What I was saying was that of course in the processes since
Government we have broadened our approaches so that we talk just
as much with the business community as we do with the trade union
movement. Indeed you may recall that at the end of the Summit one
of the leading spokesman for the business community I think it
was Sir Peter Abeles said on his assessment of the Summit we now
will regard ourselves as part of a three way process. And in fact
since April of 1983 essentially our basis of co-operation has been
a three-way one between Government and the trade unions and the
business community. And it's been very productive and worthwhile
for the people of Australia. But in the formal sense the Accord
was and remains between the Government and trade unions.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, people in North Queensland tend to
complain that any Federal Government that gets into power says yes,
we'll look after you, before the election and then quite happily
forgets and sits in Canberra-afterwards. Can you allay their fears
I don't have to start doing it now. I've already done it.
Soon after coming to Government I went up there. I remember I had
a very significant luncheon at Townsville when we announced an&~
this is in 1983 the implementation of a number of initiatives in the
area. And this was greeted with effusive gratitude and praise by
the people of the area as well as it might. Because they've now
got a Government for the first time which delivers. It just doesn't
talk about the importance of North Queensland, but has in fact
delivered. And I'm looking forward to going back there again
tomorrow because I'm the Prime Minister of a Government which has
delivered on its promises to North Queensland. Today for instance
my outstandingly successful and well accepted Minister for Primary
Industry, Mr John IKerin, has announced further assistance in regard
to the sugar industry $ 5.5 million to help in debt reconstruction
and capital works for these sugar cane farmers who are suffering from
U IU L U I 4r, & I. L1 J I 9.
P. M. cont...: very low world prices. So vie don't have to say now
in an election we start doing things. We have consistently since
we've been in Government delivered to North Queensland.
JOURNAL1STz ., 4Prime Minister if you are confident that there's going
to be no community backlash about the assets test are you also
confident that there'll b. e no backlash over the speculation on your
Government introducing a capital gains tax?
As I said from the beginning of this campaign I want the
whole issue of tax to be in the forefront of the electors minds
for every day in this election. And I am certain that tax in
general, including the fear and smear camppign on capital gains
tax, will be a plus for this Government.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister will you del~ iver to North Queensland.
on the issue of patrol boats and
I've had discussions just a week or so ago with Mr Fry of
NQEA and he expressed his appreciation of our approach and some
of the things we've immediately been able to do. I bel~ eve there
is a complete understanding on the part of Mr Pry of the commitment
of my Government to doing everything we can to assist the
development of what is an outstanding enterprise.