4J,, AUSTRALIA
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE WEDNESDAY 19 ' FEBRUARY 1986
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: Ladies and Gentlemen obviously this will be a general press
conference but I wanted to take the opportunity at the outset to
have the presence of my friend and colleague, Susan Ryan, who is
the Minister Assisting me on Womens' Affairs to make a couple of
comments on what we regard today as an historic occasion with the
introduction of the Affirmative Action Bill, which we regard as a
further example of the Government's commitment to improving the
status of women in this country. The Bill's a statement, by the
Government, to the women of Australia that the issues relating to
increasing womens' opportunities, their role in the labour force
are regarded by us as serious matters, which deserve a planned
approach to remedy any existing discrimination and to promote
real equal employment opportunities in this country. The Bill
also conveys to Australian employers the Government's view that
they need to take womens' participation in the workforce
seriously and not to do that in some merely vocal way, but to
actually plan for its improvement. I don't go any further to the
details of the Bill, you're aware of those, but it is, as far as
we're concerned in Government, one of the most important pieces
of legislation which we've introduced to this point. Susan would
you like to add anything?
RYAN: Well I would like to say that one of the most remarkable
things about the progress of the legislation to date is that
we've achieved a very high level of agreement from a range of
powerful institutions within the community. The legislation's
based on the report of the working party which had the
participation of Business Council of Australia, the Confederation
of Australian Industry, the ACTU, womens' organisations, three
Ministers in the Hawke Government and the opposition. And I
think legislation based on such broad agreement is remarkable in
itself and I think a very encouraging sign about the seriousness
with which our society now is dealing with improving the
employment skills of women and the employment opportunities of
women. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister why do you believe that the threat of
public exposure for non-compliance with the provisions of
Affirmative Action plan should be sufficient sanction for those
people who don't want to comply?
PM: Well I think the important thing is not why I believe it,
rather why those that were involved in it believe it. As I made
clear in my speech in the Parliament and as Susan's just
indicated, this legislation reflects now the outcome of a very
long process of real consultation. That consultation preceeded
the initiation of the pilot program and then an examination of
the results of that 12 months of the program by the range of
parties involved, the employers and the trade unions and the
higher education institutions, as well as our own office. And it
was out of their discussions that the shared belief emerged that
this would be the most effective way of producing the sort of
results that we want. You had to strike a balance between an
approach which on the one hand could have been a very coercive,
punitive sort of approach. And one, which on the other hand,
would have met the desires of some, but wouldn't ensure that
there be no sort of coercion or punitive element at all. Now we
believe on the advice of those who have been involved and are
going to be involved that this is the most effective way. And if
those people have that view then I think that it would not be
sensible of us as a Government to neglect that.
JOURNALIST: Senator Ryan can I ask you if the universities and
colleges have had sufficient warning of the proposal to gear them
up for 1986 and if they've had sufficient resources?
RYAN: Well they certainly should be well prepared because we
made it clear when we set up the working party that higher
education would be covered and indeed a very large number of
institutions already employed equal employment officers. The
institutions in New South Wales were in any event to have been
required to develop plans under the New South Wales legislation.
We'll now be co-ordinating that nationally. So certainly I think
they are very well prepared and the question of resources is one
they may wish to take up in the future, but I think that they are
adequately resourced to undertake this.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister why do you think the ALP is unable to
find room for any more than one women in the 27 member ministry?
PM: Well as you know the ways of Caucus are mysterious. Lots of
forces operating there and who am I to try and analyse weight
factors that operate.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it's appropriate that the Government
asks society to accept a greater role for women when they're
unable to find more room in the Ministry?
PM: Wait a minute, you've got to go one or two stages back.
This Party can hold its head up very much higher than I believe
any other political organisation in this country in terms of the
way it is translated the rhetoric of equal opportunity into
reality as far as participation in the processes of the Party's
organisation are concerned. There is a very strong degree of
involvement and representation by women in the various levels of
the Party organisation which has been now reflected in a very
considerable increase in the number of women in the Parliaments.
And we have just recently, last week, experienced a highlight of
that commitment by the election in this Parliament of Joan Child
to the Speakership. And in the South Australian Parliament, Ann
Levy, to the Presidency of the Legislative Council. So we've got
nothing to apologise for, I think, in regard to the acceleration
of the involvement of women in the processes of our Party and in
elected positions within the Party. I accept your point that a
logical development of that very substantial progress will be
more women in the Ministry.
JOURNALIST: When do you think that will happen?
PM: When the Caucus votes that way.
JOURNALIST: Will you be urging you colleagues to support women
for the Ministry?
PM: Let me make the point that was made by me in the speech. We
are not in this legislation legislating for quotas. The concept
of Affirmative Action means the-removal of barriers and bringing
to the attention of employers that their practices should not
discriminate against women. But it is still then a question of
decision on merit and I believe that the women in the Caucus
would not want it any other way.
JOURNALIST: Senator Ryan are you hapy being the only member, the
only female member of the ministry?
RYAN: Well I'm certainly happy to be there. It's better being
there than not being there. But I also regard myself as the thin
end of the wedge. There'll be more to follow.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister you've been promising since October
to write to the States on regulations on child care facilities.
Can you tell us what the hold up is? t>
PM: Well I'm, of course in these matters, advised by the office
of the Status of Women and the discussions that have been going
on in this matter presumably have not reached the stage where
that is the next step that's required. I will, of course, write
at the time when I'm advised that is the most appropriate step.
The States have no doubt about our commitments and requirements
in this area. Are there any more questions in regard to this
matter. If not we can go on to more general matters.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you said there's going to be a tough
Budget. Can you give us any idea of the quantity of expenditure
cuts that will be needed?
PM: I could but I won't Greg and I'm not trying to be akward in
answering in that way. But let me say this that is really an
elaboration of what I said in the House. We will meet the
Trilogy requirements and it is clear that with the commitment to
tax cuts that will be honoured, and the requirements of the
Trilogy, that the substantial saving exercise that we require.
I'm not going to put the figure on it at this stage. Though I
can say this, it's going to require a considerable amount of work
by myself and my colleagues in the ERC and the Budget process.
JOURNALIST: That's not going to please some of your ministers is
it? PM: Well I think we really should get this matter cleared up.
I'm not entirely suprised by the question of the Minister's
attitude in this matter. Now first of all be prepared to award
the prize for the beat-up of the year. There are those who talk
about the revolt remarkable exercise. my ministers aren't a
revolting lot, I can assure you. And they have done, in the
letter that they wrote to me, what I would expect them to do. I
wrote to them and said now I want you to nominate your
priorities. They've done that and they've done it in a fairly
lengthy letter. Spelling out those priorities in the light of
what's happened to this point. And may I say, in the letter,
there's a clear acknowledgement that what we are able to do in
this forthcoming Budget will have to be decided, in the terms
that they use as I recall, the perspective fiscal environment. A
perfectly reasonable letter and one which caused me no concern at
all. And as I say, I must give ten out of ten for the beat-up
prize for those who call it a revolt.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke why didn't you say that to Parliament
yesterday when you were questioned on it?
PM: Well I felt no necessity to say it yesterday. I made a
clear point that I thought was required by the level of questions
that was directed to me and went to the next point.
JOURNALIST: Isn't that a fairly contemptuous attitude to the
Parliament? PM: Contemptuous of the opposition?
JOURNALIST: No of the Parliament.
PM: No not contemptuous of the Parliament at all. I mean if I'm
going to operate on the basis that a beat-up really creates of
itself a fact then I suppose then I'd be going on at considerable
length on various occasions. I operate on a basis of dealing
with the facts. The facts are quite clear there was no revolt
and nothing which remotely approached a revolt. I didn't have
the feeling Laurie that out there in electorate-land that they'd
fallen for that beat-up. I didn't have any sense of urgency
about it.
JOURNALIST: Were you disappointed at the contents, or some of
the contents of the letter?
PM: Oh yes of course. I'd prefer that that sort of thing not
happen, yes.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister are you critical of Westpac's
decision to lift its interest rates, the only bank to do so to
date? PM: Let me answer that question in an indirect way, but it gets
you there. I have over a considerable period of time, both in
the Parliament and outside it, expressed my absolute confidence
in the Treasurer, Paul Keating. I still have that absolute
confidence.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you said in Parliament today that next
year's Budget deficit will fall in proportion of GDP. Would you
actually give a commitment that there'll be a cut in money terms?
PM: I gave a considered deliberate answer.
JOURNALIST: The Treasurer in his statement about the tax package
last year said that tax cuts would be financed by the increase in
the deficit which means that there would be a nominal increase in
the deficit in nominal terms next year.
PM: The Treasurer's made it quite clear that the requirements of
the Trilogy will be met. It is possible that as well as meeting
the requirements of the Trilogy that there be no increase in the
deficit as a proportion of GDP, that there may be a reduction in
the nominal amount as well. But neither I, nor the Treasurer at
this stage of the Budget process are going beyond that statement.
And it would be unrealistic to do so.
JOURNALIST: . that could mean an increase in nominal terms.
PM1: Well I don't expect it but if there were, now let me be
quite clear. I don't expect it, but if there were it would not
be inconsistent with the Trilogy. Now I hope that's clear and
that you get both parts of what I said.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke in your review of spending can you give a
guarantee that the promise to the States of a real increase in
their tax sharing grants will not be disturbed?
PM: I think that the whole range of our expenditures will be
reviewed and within that review the position of all elements,
including the States, will obviously be looked at. Now don't say
Hawke says they're going to be slashed. I'm simply saying that
all elements will be looked at.
JOURNALIST: Do you agree with Mr Kerin that the Government will
have to look at cutting into some major programs in order to meet
its commitments?
PM: Look what we have done since we've been in Government is
steadfastly and effectively each year gone about the process of
Budget formation in a way calculated to produce the result that
will satisfy our economic objectives. And we have on each
occassion, both at the formal Budget time itself and as you know
the other years in the earlier May Statements, gone about the
expenditure restraint exercise in a way which is on some
occasions gone into major areas. On other occasions into minor
areas, or a combination and we've produced the result that's
required on each occasion. Now we're entitled to say there's our
track record. We will make the decisions which are necessary to
produced the overall fiscal result that's required. We've done
it three years, we'll do it again.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, how do you respond to the
opposition's point today that the ordinary Australian can no
longer afford the high interest rates that your policies have I
PM: I am touched to have the Leader of the Opposition
talking about what the view and attitude of ordinary Australians
is about interest rates because after all he is not entitled to
come and speak with any authority. In the first place, he has no
policy in this area of any substance. Apparently, as far as one
can follow him he would be in favour, in the housing area, of
having a ceiling on interest rates for housing when interest
rates are rising. And when interest rates were falling, to
remove it. He is regarded as a joke. And it has been quite
clear that when he talks in this area the industry has repudiated
him as having any capacity to talk with sense. His own
colleague, Senator Chaney, has recently commented on this issue
in the very specific context of the attitudes of the people. He
said, that is Senator Chaney, " I have been round the electorate
and they don't seem to have the same view about this as they didI
before." He was complaining in a sense, we tried to beat this up
as a stick with which to push the Burke Government out of office.
It didn't work. What that means, Laurie, is this. And I have
been saying it before and I have said it in the House. Let me
say it again the Australian people are more intelligent and
perspicacious on these issues than this bereft, motley collection
of people who purport to pass for an Opposition. Because the
people of Australia understand that interest rates are to be
looked at not simplicita, but as part of a total economic
strategy. No government wishes to have recourse to a tight
monetary policy for the sake of slowing down activity or imposing
difficulties for some. You are not masochists. What you are
about is to have an overall economic strategy which is calculated
to maintain economic growth, employment growth with sustainable
levels of inflation and with containable balance of payments
outcome. Now the people of Australia have seen the capacity of
this Government to bring together a total, effective economic
strategy. They recognise that within the circumstances that we
have been confronted with last year, that the decision that we
taken to have a tighter monetary policy was appropriate. And
they have reflected their understanding of that, I would suggest,
both in actual electoral situations and in the polls.
JOURNALIST: Just to clarify that, Sir. Are you saying that this
is not hurting you electorally?
PM: I am not trying to be brash about it. It would be stupid to
be brash. I am saying this that on the evidence of the
elections of South Australia and Western Australia, and Scullin
if you like, and on the assertion of Senator Chaney, that the
people of Australia seem, and I congratulate them for it, to be
making an overall judgement. They say if you are going to see
how an economy is going you just don't look at one element. if
there is one element of it which has some results which, for
some, are not pleasing okay sure we note that. But is this a
government which has shown its capacity to produce an overall
economic strategy which produces the best results for the
economy. They seem to be making that judgement.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, do you see any circumstances under
which the Government might intervene to change or to block the
Bell Resources bid for BHP? I
PM: I think you would appreciate that the general position of
this Government is that it is appropriate that these sort of
things should be worked out in the market place. We have been
watching developments quite closely. And we will continue to
monitor them. To this point, by defintion, we have not felt a
compulsion to intervene. So I therefore say that we will
continue to watch this. Should some circumstance arise where we
felt the need to change the present stance, well we would
consider it. But to this point, no, it is a matter for the
market. JOURNALIST: Just on that question Mr Hawke, does the Government
have a view on whether or not BHP should be broken up
PM: My prima facie view would be against it breaking up.
JOURNALIST: Would the Government therefore be prepared to take
action to ensure that that was the case?
PM: The correct answer to that, Paul, is that we haven't, as a
Government, directed our mind to it. It is a hypothetical
question, but I think I would answer it this way. Should a
situation arise where there was some suggestion that action would
be taken in that direction which, on our judgement, would be
inimical to the best interests of Australia we would consider
that. But it hasn't arisen at this stage.
JOURNALIST: Why would you be worried about it being broken up,
Mr Hawke?
PM: You may notice that I used the word prima facie. Obviously,
we are talking about a totally hypothetical situation Greg, but
let me give you the flavour of what is in my mind. You will
recall that when we came to government there was a very, very
real possibility that BHP was going to make a commercial decision
to abandon its steel making enterprise, that it was
non-profitable and non-competitive, and that their resources tied
up in that would be better used-in another way. Now I said then
on behalf the opposition I wasn't long in that capacity but I
said then and then I certainly said it when I became Prime
Minister, that we would not tolerate that situation because the
national interests of Australia were not compatible with not
having a steel industry. Now, it is in that sense that I am
saying should there be some suggestion that the resources tied up
there would be more profitable to the acquirer in other ways. It
is that sort of thing.
JOURNALIST: Sir, could I ask if you are disturbed that for the
second day in a row your Treasurer has allowed the Opposition to
get under his skin in the Parliament?
PM: Let me say this, it is a repetition of something I have said
earlier, I have very, very great confidence in Paul Keating.
There are varying judgements about the outcome. I notice in
reading reviews today that in some quarters he was awarded a KO0
not a technical KO0, a KO0. So, in the judgement of many he did
very well. I haven't heard the proceedings today but I have
almost unlimited confidence in the capacities of the Treasurer to
handle himself effectively. He has, let's put it, a variety of
modes. And he is very effective in nearly all of them.
JOURNALIST: Why did you qualify this and say almost?
PM: There is only room for a few of us
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you really intend to legislate
separately for the Bill of Rights to override state gerrymanders
and if so when?
PM: What we have said there is that if the Bill goes through you
would expect to get, I would think fairly early, a report from
the Commission on the question of how state electoral legislation
met the requirements of the convention. And I can't therefore
put an actually time specific point on it, but I would expect
that within this year we should be in a position, if the Bill is
passed and the Commission reports, we would be in a position
within this year.
JOURNALIST: Do you believe the Queensland ALP would win an
election if the present boundaries are overturned by
PM: It is very difficult with the present boundaries and that is
not just my assessment, but it is the assessment of the Liberal
Party in Queensland that the electoral boundaries are totally
unjust and make it virtually impossible for either the Liberal
Party or the Labor Party to achieve the result to which you
refer. Under fair boundaries, yes I think they could because I
say this and say it very firmly, the Queensland Government is
the worst State Government in Australia. It has far and away the
worst economic performance. It is pitifully below the national
average whether you look in terms of employment, unemployment,
industrial disputation, bankruptcies, all these relevant
criteria, Queensland under that Government is pitifully the worst
performer in Australia. It is also a government which is
increasingly racked by internal scandals and incompetencies.
Under a fair electoral system Labor would win.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, which Bill do you mean when say..
PM: The Bill which Mr Bowen has put through the House of
Representatives and which is being considered by the Senate.
JOURNALIST: Do you mean the Bill of Rights itself or the Human
Rights? PM: I mean the Bill that is before the Senate now.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, does your Government support the Master
Builders' Association in its campaign against the Builders
Labourers' Federation?
PM: What we have done is in conjunction with the State
Governments and in discussions with employers and the ACTU, tried
to establish a code of conduct. And to the extent that the
builders are acting in accordance with that code of conduct and
that is not succumbing to the threats of the BLF, then they have
the support of governments, Federal and State.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, have you had any representations from or
talks with the Victorian Government about the oil price decision?
PM: No, I haven't. But whether there has been some discussions
with some of the Ministers I am not sure.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, reports today suggest that Mr Keating
would the full flow-on effect should be passed on. Do you
agree with that?
PM: I talked about beat-ups before. If you are going to get me
to make, or if you think you are going to get me pass an opinion
on an alleged position of a minister in a newspaper report, well
I congratulate you on your optimism. The decision of the
Government on this issue oil pricing will be made next week
and we will know then.
JOURNALIST: Will we get a decision on Monday?
PM: We might.
JOURNALIST: We might?
PM: It covers the possibilities, doesn't it?
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, when you said earlier that the whole
range of expenditure would be looked at, does that include areas
that have been looked at before but rejected such as tertiary
education fees and family allowances?
PM: You have got a general question and a specific. Answering
your general question. Yes, the whole range will be looked at.
I don't know whether you have an appreciation of just what is
involved in this exercise. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. It
is a time-consuming, awful sort of process, but once you are
committed to the position then it is appropriate in your economic
strategy to reduce the demand on community resources through the
public sector in ways which are consistent with the pursuit of
your basic social objectives. Then you have got to look over the
whole range and try and ensure that you can get a level of
outlays consistent with the attainment of that objective. And so
yes we will be looking at the whole range. And I guess some
people will want to l. ook in areas which have been considered
before. On the specific issue that you mentioned about tertiary
fees, the Government has no intention of introducing tertiary
fees. JOURNALIST: Have you made a decision on whether there is going
to be a May statement?
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on interest rates again. What is
the Government's current thinking on the value of the home loan
interest rates ceiling?
PM: That position has been made quite clear on a number of
occasions by myself and the Treasurer. I have got nothing to add
to what I have said before about that.
JOURNALIST: You are not at all moved by the banks' argument that
finance will continue to dry up?
PM: The banks have been putting that argument before when we
stated our position.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you concerned that this..
process which you have talked about will become destabilising?
PM: Don't get carried away by the observations of others, those
who are not involved in it. It is certainly not destabilising,
hasn't been in our previous three years. We have produced the
results. It won't. be destabilising in 1986. I respect very much
the commitment and determination of ministers in particular
portfolios to say well look I want to do as much as I can within
this portfolio to advance the interests of those people that come
within my portfolio. I mean, if they didn't have that commitment
and that determination they shouldn't be in the job. Now
having said that they have demonstrated in the previous three
years their capacity to balance that commitment with an overall
picture of the Government's economic strategy. They have been
very good in that in the past three years, they will be again. I
simply make the point that it is a tedious process. It is not
great fun sitting in the Cabinet Room for hour after hour going
through 27 portfolios and seeing what you can save here, what you
can save there. If you wanted to think of a way of spending of a
pleasant time, that would come at the bottom of the list. But we
have shown our capacity to do it on three occasions without any..
destabilising. And the same will happen again, the fourth time,
in 1986.
ends