lAUSTRALIA
PRIME -MINISTER
O. E. -PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE LAUNCESTON
THURSDAY, 23 JANUARY 1986
JOURNALIST: How do you react to claims by the Deputy
Premier of Tasmania that you and Mr Wriedt have been
involved in a plan to buy votes from Tasmanians without
putting any thought into it by going through local
government? PM: Who is the Deputy Premier what's his name?
JOURNALIST: Geoff-Pearsall
PM: No, I haven't had brought to my attention the
comments of Mr Pearsall and all I can say is that like
so many of the desperate statements that are made by
Liberal Party politicians-around Australia today, there's
100 per cent false.
JOURNALIST: What do you think the issues will be in
Tasmania? PM: Well, that is a question that obviously can be
answered more competently by Mr Wriedt and my colleagues
here because they are in a day-to-day sense involved. But
I would think that one of the issues would be, I think it
certainly ought to be, to work in cooperation with the
Federal Government. Now, I haven't come down here to attack
Mr Gray in personal terms I don't intend to do that but
it is a matter of record that I have been having discussions
with Mr Gray, to have other people there so that there can be
a clear understanding of what in fact has been said. And that
sort of confrontationalism which is characterised in Gray's
approach would certainly be absent in a government led by
Ken Wriedt. And there would be an intention of putting a case
for Tasmanians forcefully and toughly but with the great
advantage of Ken Wriedt and his Ministers knowing intimately
the workings of the Members of the Federal Government
and I think in that way there is no question that the
interest of Tasmania would be advanced. I think that should
be and I guess will be one of the issues.
2.
JOURNALIST: When you say that you can work well with
Mr Wriedt, is that to say that you can't work well with
Mr Gray.
PM: Well, I have made the-comment in answering the question
that in the ' 83/' 84 period and into ' 85 there were occasions,
it is a matter of public record, when what had actually
transpired in discussion~ was misrepresented by Mr Gray.
And it has been subsequently revealed to have been
misrepresented. I don't think those sorts of things make
for the most constructive sort of relationship between
governments. As I say, I-don't want to get into a
detailed personal analysis of Mr Gray. I don't do that
when I go-into states. But that is a matter of record
and I think it is clear that that sort of approach would
be absent in a government led by Mr Wriedt. Let me make
it clear that because we have governments, at a state
level, of the same political persuasion as ourselves,
which is the case in the mainl. and states other than
Queensland, it doesn't mean a cosy relationship in which
the State Premiers simply because we are of the same political
persuasion, don't put their case forcefully. I can assure
you that in the case of Neville Wran and John Bannon,
John Cain and Brian Burke, it is a very, very forceful
presentation of the cases of the states. But the very
fact that we have a knowledge of one another and not merely
at the Premier to the Prime MInister level, but at the
various Ministers levels, is, by definition, helpful in
the capacity to have cases heard and put.
JOURNALIST: Mr, Gray says that you have worked against 105con'A
in several areas and is running a large part of his election
campaign on that basis.
PM: Mr Gray again does not tell the truth on this issue.
I had brought to my attention something he said in the
Parliament where he said that on the night that I was
elected Prime Minister I had virtually declared war on
Tasmania. You only have to see the transcripts of what
I said on that night that the opposite was the case.
I said " Tasmanians have not voted for us7 we didn't
get a House of Representatives seat, but I said on the
very night of being elected Prime Minister, I said " I
will be governing for Tasmanians just as much as I will
be for the rest of Australia. And the record is that
in the agreement signed in June of 1984 which finalised
the arrangements about the Gordon below Franklin, in that
document the Premier has signed to the effect that Mr
Hawke has fully honoured all his commitments in regard
to the question of the dam. But having signed that document
and said so, he then seeks to put another point of view.
Now, ultimately that can only mean that his signature
is not worth the paper on which it is written.
JOURNALIST: Is there anything concrete in which Tasmania
would be better off under a Labor Government dealing with
Canberra? PM: I go back to the point I made that you obviously have
a position more beneficial to a state where not only the
Premier but all the Ministers, simply because they know
their counterparts, they have worked with them over many
years. they have a better capacity to deve) Loy relations,
to put cases, in that sort of environmenet~ lan in one where
at the head of the state government you have the personification
of confrontation and of misrepresentation. NOw, it is just
human nature that in that sort of circumstance, the former
is going to get better results.
JOURNALIST: Mr Gray appears to have shied away from the
privatisation issue in this campaign. And unlike his South
Australian colleague what does that-indicate to you?
PM: It indicates that Mr Gray like the rest of the Liberals
all around Australia are first of all bereft of policies
and can't be trusted when they get into the area of
policy formulation.. Now, let it not be forgotten that in
the development of the privatisation ideas, which until
very recently Mr Howard and other Liberal leaders have been
saying is right at the centre of Liberal thinking for the
next election, don't let it be forgotten that one then Senator
Rae from TAsmania. was the principal adviser to Mr Carlton
on this concept of privatisation.-That is Senator Rae from
this area of Launceston. Principal adviser on this concept
of privatisation. I believe that whatever Mr Gray might
be saying now, because he has learnt that the people of
Australia have rejected the concept of privatisation that
was made quite clear in Adelaide he will be making soft
noises, soft pedalling, saying no it will be a different
story-if he were to be re-elected.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on a national question. You have
just left the Federal Executive discussing Mr Hartley.
PM: No. Correction, I have not.
JOURNALIST: Well, it is apparently still proceeding.
PM: Yes. But I haven't been at it. That is all I am
saying. JOURNALIST: Do you believe it has got the potential to
turn into a publicly damaging'and embarrassing brawl. You
have criticised factionalism in the ALP in the past. Isn't
this just another example of it.
PM: ON the contrary. Let me make these points firstly.
And I am not pre-judging what will happen, that is a matter
for the Executive to decide. It is perfectly appropriate
that they should consider whether they should
continue to have him in the Party after he has made certain
stgtemens o that is being done. Andi they should
make tat aec ision my Judgemen t is, not beia negative, gut
PM cont: let me make this point about factionalism, I have
had to make it recently and it is something that I really
started to outline early in 1985. A-seminal change has
taken place in the Australian political scene. It is quite
true that there are still groups, factions if you want to
call them that, within the Labor Party. But as I said -early
in 1985, it has become more obviously true as 1985 has gone
on and we have moved into 1986, factionalism has diminised
within the Labor Party. There has been very, very stong
and positive cooperation on the formulation of policies,
and the implementation of them. And the existence of different
factional groupings within the Labor Party has not stopped
both the formulation and the implementation of policy.
I said at the beginning of 1985. and I said this gratuitously
if you like to the Canberra Gallery, I said in 1985 if you
want to talk about factionalism you look at he Opposition
parties That is where factionalism develo'and predominate4
in 1985. And that is exactly what happened. It is operating
now in the Opposition parties in a totally damaging and
negative way. They are completely incapable of formulating
any policies. Why? It is not because they can't think
about policies. I don't think that~ they think terribly
well. But I am not here to insult them in that sense..
The reason why they can't formulate policies on the fundamental
issues of taxation, wages, social welfare policy, is because
they are ridden with groups who have fundamentally opposing
views. You take privatisation. It has been mentioned earlier.
Mr Howard and others are totally committed to the concept
of selling off the public assets which provide services
to the people of Australia. -Totally committed. There are
others who regard that as completely stupid policy. On
the centrally important issue of wages policy. There are
some of them who want to abolish-the Conciliation and ARbitration
Commission. They say they want to get rid of it. Others
say no you can't possibly do that. And that is what their
factionalism is about. Quite different from the Labor Party.
it is operating in a way there to stop the formulation of
policy. -And the Liberals of Australia are quite incapable
of going to the people of Australia and saying this is what
we believe in, this is what we would do in government.
JOURNALIST: None of the Liberals are actually being expelled
by other Llberals?
PM: Let me say if you are talking about expelling. There
are ways and ways of expelling. And Tasmania ought to be
very much aware of the way in which Mr Howard has expelled
Tasmania. He expelled TAsmania from his front bench. All
the TAsmanians were repudiated. So much so that, what is
member for Denison's name Mr HOdgman, said that this is
an attack upon Tasmania. That they were all expelled.
There are ways and ways of getting rid of influences you
don't like. The Federal leadership of the Liberal Party
hates Tasmania. And has expelled from the front bench.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you say that you could probably deal
better with Mr Wriedt as a Premier. In your budget last
year Mr Keating said that Tasmania would not have the special
assistance it got at the last. Premier's Conference to form
part of the base of negotiations for the coming Premier's
Conference, which makes things look bad or grim for Tasmania
if you like. I am just asking what the situation would
be? PM: As far as Commonwealth and Tasmania and budgetary matters
are concerned, let's Just talk about the factual situation.
WE had the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission
before us~ as you know, last year. And there was very considerable
Cor~ Ce v h here in Tasmania, understandably. As a result of those
reecommendations there would be very, very substantial cuts.
Because that is what was recommended. Fortunately for
TAsmania, as distinct from all the rhetoric and so on that
emanated in the first from the Premier of TAsmania. Ken
Wriedt came over to see us. No fanfare, just quietly came
and talked with us. And Cabinet having not at that stage
considered the issue, we were coming to consider it, Our
opportunity to look at the issues in terms of the needs
of Tasmania was very much enhanced by the contribution that
Ken Wriedt made. And in the event, the decision that we
made which I think was very generally welcomed in Tasmania
was to a considerable extent to the credit of Ken WRiedt.
That is * hat * has happened up until know and it confirms
the same sort of analysis that I put to you before about
the way in which that sort of approach, which one identifies
with Ken Wriedt, is more likely to work than the alternative
JOURNALIST: Back onto the Hartley issue, Mr Hawke. For
the National Executive it is a very important decision.
SHouldn't you be there participating and is all the fuss
worthwhile. Mr Hartley seems to be thriving on all the
publicity. PM: You won't regard it as too rude of me, I don't-need
to be told by you or anyone else what MY priorities are.
LEt me point out to you that this is the only occasion
which, at least at a fair distance before the actual polling
date, I can in terms of my other commitments be in Tasmania.
I want to say to the people of Tasmania that I regard
it as more important to do something for which I can't delegate
anyone else. I can't delegate anyone else to be Prime Minister
and come down here into the campaign. I have the capacity
under the constitution of the ALP to have a proxy. I can
have a proxy in Canberra to deal with that matter with which
I have not been unassociated in the past. But I can't have
a proxy down here. I
JOURNALIST: One question on the rural sector if I can.
The Livestock and Grain Producers Association of NSW has
called on the Government to set up an agricultural accord
along the lines of an ACTU/ Government accord. Now that
would involve also I think the problem of compensation claims.
Hlow realistic do y ou think that is?
6.
PM: I don't know that we should commit ourselves to a view
about an accord or a particular term. But let me say this
that no-one understands more.-clearly than I do the very
severe crisis in which the rural sector of Australia is
now passing. Very basically of course, as they themselves
understand, that is because of factors outside the control
of anyone in Australia. That is the corruption of the international
markets as a result predominantly of the action
of the Europeans. And now reaction in response by the United
States. Now when I say there is virtually nothing we can
do about that, we are nevertheless sending our Ministerfor
Trade, Mr Dawkins, to the United States next to talk to
them. I have invited Mr McLachlan of the National Farmers
Federation to go with him for those discussions in the United
States. Now, as far as the situation within Australia
is concerned. We are looking seriously at that. Mr Kerin
today has been meeting with the banks and the representatives
of the farmers to try and ensure that they will not be ultimately
adversely impacted on by the level of interest rates. And
we will be receiving in the Cabinet a submission from Mr
Kerin in the relatively near future as to the sorts of things
that we may be able to look further at to help the farmers.
I have told Mr McLachlan representing the National Farmers
Federation that we will have further discussions with them
in the light of that Cabinet submission. Out of all that
it is possible that some sort of agreement may emerge.
It is too early to say what form if any that would take.
So I make the point, I don't say yes or no to the terminology
of an accord, but the concept of discussion, consultation
and cooperation with the rural community is at the centre
of what we are about. And just how that will be reflected
will be for the events of the next few weeks to bring out.
JOURNALIST: -On ANZUS Prime Minister, did Australia'support
the expulstion of New Zealand from* ANZUS?
PM: No. You will have seen that that has been repudiated
by the spokesman for the representatives cxf the Americans
who were here arid they have been in touch with us to say
that that has been a total misrepresentation of the
position. We have not said that at any stage.
JOURNALIST: Is suspension a good idea?
PM: It is not a question of suspension. if you have
a position where the United States says it is not going
to be operative as far as they are concerned between the
United States arid New Zealand. What we have simply said
Is in that situation we will ensure that it remains operative
between ourselves and the United States. And it is quite
clear that is how it will be.