.1 AUSTRALIA
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH LAURIE OAKES 11 OCTOBER 1985
OAKES: Prime Minister, how badly do you believe you have
been damaged by the Bicentennial row?
PM: Not at all. I believe the explanations I have given in
the Parliament show that I have acted honourably and appropriately.
And I always make the judgement about politics, Laurie, that the
Australian people have a much greater capacity to get their
priorities and their perspectives in order than does a
bedraggled and increasingly incompetent opposition.
OAKES: But don't you think some people might have had their
illusions about you shattered a bit. I mean you haven't come out
of this as the world's greatest administrator.
PM: I conceded openly when I first spoke to the Parliament that'
it may have been wiser if I had looked at the composition of the
settlement earlier than the 10th of September. But I have said
that if I made a mistake there it was a mistake of trusting what
I had been told by the Chairman of the Authority.
OAKES: Do you concede that you should have made more checks and
sought more advice?
PM: With the benefit of hindsight, which unfortunately none of
us have by definition at the time, then we may be able to have
done something. But, of course, what you have got to remember
is that by the time I received the letter on the 28th of August
seeking approval, which under law I couldn't give, the deed
of settlement had already been signed five days earlier. A
remarkable situation.
OAKES: But the truth is that if you had acted earlier you could
have stopped this payment and the subsequent row wouldn't have
occurred, there wouldn't recover the money.
PM: You say if, if, if. I would have had to have adopted a
different judgement about bhe previous Chairman than the one
I did. The judgement I adopted was that what I was being told
reprebented the position as it was. That there was essentially
a contract to be bought out which would involve an amount of the
order that emerged. It turns out that that wasn't the case.
Now, of course, if one had known the position as it was put
to me was not accurate one would have done different things. / 2
OAKES: But it is not just the Chairman. It is also your own
Department that you say misled you?
PM: Well what has emerged in regard to the Department j,. g that they
became aware, I think they are now saying, on the first of October,
the file on which this existed, not the file by the way, which said
in Senate Committe report that had been attached, said was attached
to the minutes of the first Board. They are saying it wasn't. They
found it subsequently in another file. But they found it on the first
of October apparently.
OAKES: And what do you think of your Department after that?
PM: It is not a question of what I think. I think I have conveyed
to them that I agree with their assessment that they were considerably
less than ept.
OAKES: Whether it is the fault of the former Chairman or the
Department, you are the responsible Minister and you have got to carry
the can. Has your image suffered?
PM: I don't think so. You have got the position where when you
are told that a contract is not available, and it is not availab&
because they have been given the impression from the Authority that
it is not available on the grounds that this is a personal document
between the Authority and the person. And that is what they tell
you. I don't suppose it would be regarded as a sensible use of Prime
Ministerial time to go over and try and comb through 800 files.
OAKES: No, I concede that. But are you aware of the criticism
around the corridors, including among Caucus members, that this has
shown up a flaw in your make-up as Prime Minister, if you like, that
you are not an administrator.
PM: No, I am not aware of that. And very importantly, I have been
going around this country as you know quite extensively in the
last few weeks. And I have not had one question about it.
OAKES: It has been said to me and perhaps you haven't heard that
Bob Hawke has always been a front man, good at shaking hands, kissing
babies, appearing on television. But has never come out tops in
administration? There is talk about ACTU Solo and ACTU Bourkes
PM: Well, let's talk about ACTU Solo and ACTU Bourkes. It is this
Bob Hawke who asked the previous government to abolish resale price
maintenance which was costing the citizens of this country millions
of dollars a year. The government of my predecessors wouldn't do
that. So this Bob Hawke set up ACTU Bourkes and we smashed resale
price maintenance. And we saved the citizens of this country hundreds
of millions of dollars, now much more than that. The same fellow
who set up ACTU Solo, which brought in very considerable savings to
the people of this country. So, not only do I repudiate the
proposition of not being effective in terms of making decisions and
carrying them through. The opposite is true.
OAKES: Bob Hawke is a good administrator in your view?
PM: Yes. I am not saying that I am the most brilliant administrator
in the world. I am an effective administrator. And most importantly
I produce the results in the area of conception and ideas and then
the carrying through of that in the policy which has turned this
economy around from its worst recession in 50 years to the point,
where, as you know, on the most recent statistics we are well ahead
of my promise I made to the Australian people of giving them 500,000
new jobs in 3 years. We are well ahead of that target. Now, that
didn't happen by accident. It happened because I had a view about
how this economy should be run. I not only had the view, the
conception, I worked it out. And then with my MInisters I applied
that. So, I won't cop this nonsense about not being able to conceive
the right policies nor being able to apply them.
OAKES: ARe you too busy?
PM: Well, I think any Prime Minister is always too busy. I work,
as you know, extraordinarily long hours. And I guess, if you could
reach into the impossible you would like to be able to put out more
hours in the day. And if you had more hours you could do more
things, or some of the things that you do you might be able to give
even more attention to. But, I am not only stand them, I feel
extraordinarily proud of my record as Prime Minister which has
produced an economy in this country which is recognised as the best
performing economy in the world, which is producing the highest rate
of employment growth in the world, the highest rate of employment
growth that this country has ever witnessed. And I have been directly
and intimately associated not only with the conceptions that led to
that result but the application '~ the
policies that have produced those results.
OAKES: Can we tu rn from your performance to that of your opponent?
Before John ward was Oppo, iti on Leader you publicly and privately
expressed some admiration fr hi m. What is your view now that you
have been up against him for a month?
PM: I haven't been given the benefit of having put in front of me
the markings of his performance by his
' friend and colleague, MichaelHodgman. He is the:" who has actually bz~
day by day marking the performance.
OAKES: How would you mark it?
PM: Well, from what I hear I would agree with Michael Hodgman's
marking. I think John Howard's performance on a daily basis hasn't
got over 4 out of 10. I think that is a fairly generous assessment
by his own colleague.
OAKES: What do you base that on, or what does Michael Hodgman base
that on?
PM: You would have to ask Michael. But he obviously, in the first
instance, his argument against Andrew Peacock was that Peacock didn't
have policies. That Peacock just sto-6d back and waited for things
to happen and thought perhaps some day when we got up towards an
election, produce a policy. But of course, we have seen more backing
and shcijing and sideways stepping by Mr Howard in every area of policy
than ever occurred under Mr Peacock. I mean you look at the areas.
Privatisation. At the first stage he was going to privatise the
lot. Now perhaps this on, no not that, or a bit of that one, a bit
of this one. In the area wages and industrial relations policy.
Now how many have we had there. He makes the Kharma Sutra look
positively meagre. I mean, he has got that many positions you can't
keep up with him. We don't know what they are going to be tomorrow.
It doesn't matter what area. Tax, let us look at tax. He was the
man of principle on tax and the assets test. The man of principle.
He has just jumped away from every position of principle and is
becoming the supreme opportunist.
OAKES: But isn't he tougher in the House than Mr Peacock was?
PM: Well he has, and this is the judgment of others.,~ C has not
performed well as leader. He has caused no problem to the Government
whatsoever. It is very interesting sitting there as Prime Minister.
You watch the Leader of the Opposition and you watch those behind
him. And they are singularly unimpressed. I mean the rumblings are
already starting. I mean there is-* uarantee that I will be having
John Howard as the Leader of the Opposition when we come to the next
election. OAKES: Who is the alternative? Michael Hodgman?
PM: Well he has declared himself publicly as coveting the position
and going for it if Mr Howard doesn't perform. And according to
Michael Hodgman' s own calculations, Mr Howard hasn't performed.
OAKES: But seriously?
PM: I am not going to be party to some defamatory comment. I mean
if you are saying that Mr Hodgman is not worthy of being Leader of
the Opposition. I mean I think the way the Oppostion is going, he
is a worthy Leader of that Oppostion.
OAKES: As Prime Minister, you have to worry about your Party, the
Labor Party, nationally. The Party seems to be in trouble in
Victoria? Is that your perception?
PM: No, I don't think it is in trouble. It looks as though something
quite unwise has been done by some people in the Party.
OAKES: It is the Nunawading dirty trick?
PM: Well, on what has been said, it is my judgment that something
unwise seems to have been done. As it has been said by Mr Batchelor,
nothing illegal. And indeed, in the past the conservative parties
have played their dirty tricks, if you want to call it that way,
complaints have been made to the Electoral Office about both the DLP
and the Liberal Party. The fact that they have played those sort
of tricks I don't think justifies this one.
OAKES: But should Mr Batchelor get the chop as State Secretary?
PM: I don't believe so. But I am not going to intrude into their
internal affairs in that way. They will sort that one out.
OAKES: But don't you think you could make a judgement. for example,
the Victorian Governor was effectively sacked because he did something
unwise. Don't you think the same rule should apply to the Party
Secretary?
PM: I don't think there is an analogy there. And I am not going
into the question of the Victorian Governorship and what happened
there. And so I look at this other issue by itself. I don't think
you can expect me to say more than I have and that is that I think
something unwise occurred. And in politics people do unwise things
at times. But I, on what I know of it, I don't think that the lack
of wisdom that was displayed warrants the resignation of the Secretary
PM: Do you think that Mr Cain is in trouble, the Victorian Premier.
The reason I ask that is that an interview th; 3t Mr Bill Hartley
gave on Monday, I have got a transcript here, radio interview, Mr
Bill Hartley is
PM: If he is criticising Mr Cain that is prima facie evidence that
Mr Cain is going well.
OAKES: Well Mr Hartley refers to two significant job vacancies in
Victoria at the moment, one for Premier and one for State Governor.
What is your reaction to that?
PM: I would think that Mr Hartley ought to look at his position
within the Labor Party. But that is something not new for me to say.
I have been saying that for a long time.
OAKES: So you are backing Mr Cain?
PM: Of course, I back Mr Cain. And if you are putting it in terms
of a choice between Mr Cain and Mr Hartley it is no race is it.
OAKES: Is it just Mr Hartley?
PM: Well I have only heard of Mr Hartley declaring a vacancy.
OAKES: Mr Hawke, you are heading off on Sunday for the Commonwealth
Heads of Government meeting, CHOGM.
MI be leve you are coming with me, Laurie?
NKES. esI am.
PM: I am looking forward to you coming.
OAKES: It seems that CHOGM stands for chaps holidaying on government
money. Do you think anything
PM: What about journalists who go with them?
OAKES: That is an unfair question?
PM: Yes.
OAKES: Do you think these meetings achieve anything?
PM: Yes I think they do. I think for instance if you look back to
the time of my predecessor I think the Commonwealth there was able
to play a very significant role in the emergence of an independent S
Zimbabwe in circumstances less bloody and less difficult than would
have been the case without the existence of the Commonwealth. And
I pay tribute to the role that way played by Mr Fraser, my
predecessor in that exercise. The last CHOOM was my first CHOGM,
in ' 83 as you will recall. And there again I think that the
Commonwealth was able to play a very useful role in regard to Grenada.
So I always operate on the basis of not trying to overstate the
significance of the institution or of16ountry with which you are
associated. I mean, as far as Australia is concerned, no-one has
got greater pride in this country than I. But where we take our place
in international events, I try to have a perspective that with a
country of 16 million people, I don't try to overstate who we are
or what we can do. And again with the Commonwealth. A big
institution within the world, community of nations. We can't
determine what the rest of the world is going to do. And I believe
that because of the affinities that we have with one another, becaus-V,
of the fact that we represent black and white and other colours,
because of the fact that we represent so many different races, because
we represent the most developed countries and the least developed
countries. Because we represent very large, physically large
countries, down to the smallest island states, that gives us a
capacity, a knowledge and an experience to bring to bear upon
international issues a perspective, an understanding whictkis unique.
OAKES: At the meeting next week, you will be putting forward an
initiative for an international group of respected personalities to
investigate the South African situation. And I think a plan to
achieve majority rule? How do you think that committee would operate.
What can it achieve?
PM: Well, I of course, want to finalise our thinking about this
before we get there and I am in the process of doing that.
consultation with my people. And so I don't now definitively put
the details of what we will be doing. But you are right in
saying that I intend that Australia shall take a leading role in
addressing itself to the abhorrence of apartheid. And really there
are a number of elements of that. You mention one, as to whether
it is possible to get a group of people who would be able to bring
prestige and a capacity to bear upon this situation. That is one
element of what we will be talking about.
oakes; And I gather our diplomats who are already lobbying for this,
are suggesting Julius Nyere from Tanzania as the possible chairman
of that committee. Ts that your suggestion?
PM: Well, I don't want at this stage to go into that detail Laurie.
But let me say this. Julius Nyere has a standing not only in AFrica
through his long tenure of leadership, but also I believe a respect
outside of AFrica which would make Julius an appropriate person to
be involved in this concept.
OAKES: I am also told we are also floating as possible Australian
members of the Committee, Malcolim Fraser and Gough Whitlam?
PM: Well, let me say their names have been mentioned. And they aretwo
citizens of the world, if may say that in this sense, who would be
appropriate to be considered. As you know I have consistently both
publicly and privately acknowledged the consistent integrity and
commitment of Malcolm Fraser in this area. And of course it goes
with Gough without saying. It is more appropriate that I should
mention Malcolm Fraser.
OAKES: It would be unusual for a Labor Government to appoint a former
Liberal Prime Minister to that kind of job.
PM: Well, it wouldn't be our function to appoint anyone. I mean
Australia won't be making appointments to bodies embraced by the
Commonweal th.
OAKES: But you will be recommending
PM: Well, I don't develop that point now. But I simply want to make
this point and it gives me pleasure to make it. I have nothing but
admiration for Malcolm Fraser on the issue of colour and race. He
has throughout his public career been impeccable on this issue. And
now at a time where his own party in this country has been, if I can
put it as gently as possible, has been ambivalent on this question,
he has been even fiercer if you like in his determination and
commitment to see that he could do whatever he can to focus the
world's attention upon the abhorrence of apartheid.
OAKES: Would you see the committee that you have got in mind
visiting South Africa?
PM: I have said before I don't want to develop more details than
this. I don't think it is fair that I should do that at this stage.
I will be more than happy to talk to you about it later on.
OAKES: Allright. On a more general subject, what do you see CHOGM
doing about sanctions against South Africa?
PM: Well, again I want to hear what my colleagues there have to
say. I think we will all be concerned to see if some concept of
effective sanctions can be applied. But I want to make the point to
your viewers that I would infinitely prefer a situation in which
sanctions were not necessary. And at the same time if one in maybe
talking about seeing what you can do about effective santions.
Contemporaneously with that we should be addressing our minds to
how we can persuade the South African regime itself to understand
that the world can no longer tolerate the abhorrence of apartheid.
And to get the South African regime to understand that in its own
interests as well as the interest of the 18 million black South
Africans that there should be moves init'iated by the South African
Government to move towards a situation where there is a universal
suffrage and we do have a free living society within that currently
tragic State. And~ a State which is facing the prospect of appalling
bloodshed good sense does not prevail.
OAKES: Nevertheless you will be discussing sanctions?
PM: I will be discussing them obviously.
OAKES: Do you expect a clash with Britain's Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher on that?
PM: Well I am not looking for one.
OAKES: But you got on quite well at the last CHOGM?
PM: At New Delhi we got on very well and I have no desire to clash
with Margaret Thatcher. No desire at all.
OAKES: ( inaudible)
PM: Well I don't know. I don't know what position she will have
there. I mean I must say that I agree with you that one would think
on the basis of what the British Government has said to this point,
there will be a clear difference of opinion. If they adhere to their
position there would be a clear difference of opinion not just
between myself and Margaret Thatcher but I would think between
Margaret Thatcher and about virtually every other representative
there. But I don't go there looking for a clash.
OAKES: Does it matter if she refuses to go along with your ideas
on sanctions or with the Commonwealth's ideas on sanctions?
PM: Well obviously a less than desirable situation. If what
emerges is the position of" est on one side and Britain on the other
and that is not a position that I would be seeking to create, I
would hope that the British Government would recognise the strength
of feeling within the Commonwealth.
OAKES: Mr Hawke, is it true that you have got in mind a training
plan for young black South Africans that you will be presenting
to CHOGM?
PM: We have already, in Government, made contributions to the
training of young blacks and we will be talking about things we
have done. We may be able to think of measures that will take
it even further.
OAKES: Similar to the scholarship program that used to exist for
young black Rhodesians before independence?
PM: Similar sort of concept but it goes from the point that if
there is going to be a move towards universal suffrage in which the
blacks are going to have the opportunity ofo~ ajority say in the
running of their own country then it is very important that there
be as many trained blacks as there can be. Not merely in the area
of government and administration but also ineconomic management.
Let me say in going to that point that I think as essentially
important an issue in talking constructively about the future
of South Africa is that we address ourselves to the way in which
the capital, the experience and the expertise of white South
Africans shpuld not be dissipated. I mean the great tragedy
would be if got political suffrage, universal suffrage, independence
in that sense and the country were to fall back into economic
stagnation and recession because of the withdrawal or the driving
away of all the accumulated experience and capital of white
South Africa. So I think what men and women of goodwill should be
trying to address themselves to is to give some sort of assurance
to white South Africans that in a new free and liberal society,
in political terms, that there should be an understanding of the
legitimate place there for them.
OAKES: I am wondering if you see a risk that on this issue you
win the Commonwealth but not win the Australian electorate. There
seems to have been a backlash against the Government's decision,
for example, to keep out the Rotary golfers?
PM: Well I don't know about a backlash. I haven't had any such
backlash brought to my attention. But thereIcertain issues of
principle, I believe, that are non-negotiable and I have said
before earlier in this program that that's the position I would
share with Malcolm Fraser.
OAKES: But how is it though that these three Rotarians were able
to play in gold in Scotland last year? One has actually played
at Gleneagles. Why were they allowed to play there but not in
Australia? PM: Well we believe that the:', presence here would not be
consistent with the Gleneagles Agreement. But let me say this further,
that I believe that the attitude of the world today is different
to what it was twelve months ago. You only have to look at the
hardening of the attitudes, for instance, in the United States.
If I had said to you twelve months ago the United States would be
talking economic action against South Africa you probably would
have been sceptical. But they have.