1, i1Sk~
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LUNCH WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 1986
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
HYWOOD: I want to ask you how long you intend staying Prime
Minister. Do you intend retiring around halfway through the next
Parliament if you win the next election? If so, do you believe
your reluctant Treasurer would be the best person to takeover?
PM: Well my first to the next election and I would hope
that something like three terms I would have been able to put
into policies of this Government the directions in
which this country was going. I've been in public life for a
very long period of time and I hope to have some active and
productive years for more personal pursuits. So I think
something like the order of three terms would be appropriate. As
to the succession, as in most matters with this Government, not
all but most, it's a democratic process. I very rarely seek to
impose my own will absolutely, and without discussion and
certainly in the matter of my successor, the succession, I
wouldn't seek to do it because I know I couldn't any rate.
GRATTAN: Mr Hawke on the third anniversary of your Government
are you disappointed that you have had this week to break the
initial promise on the uniform national land rights legislation
and what do you intend to say to your critics?
PM: Let me, I thought there might be a question on this. So let
me at the outset Michelle put my answers to a very legitimate
question in the context of the record of this Government in
regard to the advance of the aboriginal people in Australia. I'm
proud to say that in this area there has been a more substantial
application of funds than in virtually any other area of
Government policy. The figures are that comparing 82,/ 83 to the
present time, that is the current year 85/ 86, there has been a 73
per cent increase in the funds made available for the advancement
of aboriginal programs. In real terms that's a 44 per cent
increase in funding in this area. And this Government therefore,
has nothing to apologise for in terms of what we have done to
seek to advance the interests of what by any standards is a
severely disadvantaged section of the Australian population.
The fundamental objective of the Government's policy in the area
of land rights has been to achieve secure title for aboriginals
over land with which they have a traditional association. We've
consistently indicated a preference, if that's possible, that
each state should take appropriate action to achieve that
objective. And my Minister to whom I pay unqualified tribute,
Clyde Holding, for the work he's done and the manner in which
he's done it, has through these three years consistently been
having discussions with the aboriginal people, the
representatives, the States, mining interests and others to try
and secure a position in which the advancement of this objective,
that is the obtaining of secure titles for aboriginals over land
with which they have a traditional association, can be achieved
in the most viable and secure way. A way which is going to risk
the least possible creation of an atmosphere in which the
aboriginal people themselves will be disadvantaged. Now
considerable advances have been made in those approaches by my
Minister with the States. In regard to the latest negotiations
that he's had with Western Australia, the position is now, as a
result of those discussions between Mr Holding and the Western
Australian Government, that the Western Australian Government
will provide secure titles to land for aboriginal people living
on reserves in that State and a number of other measures. And
that will, in fact, represent a very significant improvement in
the position of aboriginal people in Western Australia. I also
make the point that in the situation where, as a result of those
sorts of negotiations, the approach to obtaining secure title for
aborigines has been done by the States. We are not going ahead
with that part of what was a more comprehensive approach to
remove the right of veto of aboriginals in the Northern
Territory. We regard it as not appropriate to do that in the
absence of a more national approach. And I also refer to the
fact that we have indicated our intention to bring in a permanent
replacement for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
Heritage Interim Protection Act as a further reflection of our
concern to preserve and protect aboriginal culture. Now I say
all that and I make no excuse for the length of the answer
because this is an important question. I guess in some sense one
has to say that it is disappointing that the circumstances in
this country have changed, from 1967 when the people of Australia
overwhelming indicated the desire to have a more centralised
approach on this issue. Attitudes are not the same in 1986 as
thgy were in 1967. We have not therefore, however, retracted
from trying to achieve our objective of obtaining secure title
for Aboriginals because there has been this change in
environment. We have sensibly and effectively tried to work
within that environment and I believe that Clyde Holding is to be
congratulated for the advances that he's made. I am confident
that in the event, as a result of those negotiations that he has
conducted and the decisions that we have made now in this
environment, that the objective, as I say, of obtaining secure
titles for Aboriginals over land, to which they have a
traditional association, has been very significantly advanced.
And I repeat, as I said at the beginning, this aspect of our
approach in regard to the interests of Aboriginal people in this
country has been undertaken within the context of this
historically high level of real increase in funding for
Aboriginal advancement in Australia.
DAVIS: A question on tax avoidance. Is your Government
concerned about the erosion in the corporate tax base involved in
the present wave of takeovers using negatively geared borrowings.
Do you believe it's fair, or efficient that corporate raiders can
negatively gear through their companies, while individuals can't?
PM: Ken, obviously this is an area of concern, not only to you
and I notice the considerable amount of writings you have done on
it. It is properly a matter for concern by us and the Cabinet
has asked that the Treasurer should provide for us a submission
on this subject. we will be getting that submission in the very
near future and we will be considering what action, if any, is
necessary in the light of that submission.
MACCALLJM: Can I ask you a general question on multiculturalism,
which is a subject which I though you might have brought up in
talking about the three years of your Government. It does seem
that there is, in this as in other areas, something of a
community backlash developing. Have you any plans to conduct any
kind of public campaign to stress the advantages of A
multicultural society? And perhaps following up the answer you
gave Michelle Grattan, do you think in hindsight that the changes
in attitudes towards Aboriginal land rights, which you've
mentioned, could have been circumvented if there'd been more
leadership from the Government?
PM: You say in regard to the first part of the question, Mungo,
I can't say that there's been a decision specifically for a
national campaign to highlight what are undoubtedly the very real
advantr. ges that this country has achieved through the fact that
we ha-ve become a truly multicultural society. I would say
howev~ r, that in the specific programs that the Minister is
following, and in the programs that will be part of the
Bicentennial celebrations, emphasis upon the advantages of our
multiculturalism will be very much at the forefront. And let me
say this, that should it become apparent that more needed to be
done than in the areas to which I've referred, we would be
prepared to do it. As to the second part of your question. It's
always easy Mungo, when you're not sitting in the seat of
responsibility to say you should have shaped attitudes in a
different way, and if you'd shaped attitudes in a different way
thqn outcomes would have been different. And I make no
criticisms of those who sit back and perhaps express the wish
that the attitudes of Australian society could have been moulded
in a different way. But I have to say to you, and I say without
any feeling of bitterness, or rancour about the question, it's
certainly a fair question. This society is not an easily
manipuable society and I think that that's a good thing.
Australian society is one which has a record or being prepared to
make up its own mind, it's not easily manipulated by politicians
or by one person and I think that's something for which we should
be considerably grateful. So in a position of power and of
leadership what you've got to try and do is to gradually produce
what you hope will be a more compassionate attitude about issues
of concern. You are, I believe, going to produce a
counterproductive situation if you jump miles in front of where
the populous is at this time. I say without any compunction at
all that I would be happier, personally, if the environment, the
attitudes of Australia in 1986 on the issue about which we were
talking, were more like those of 1967. It does seem to be the
case that a society of 1967, which had experienced a generation
of full employment, whose contemplations were those of certainty
of employment for themselves, certainty of growing living
standards, improving quality of life, that that society had a
greater preparedness for compassion. It does seem to be the case
that in a country and in a world if you like where greater
uncertainty has become the characteristic of life, that that more
obvious preparedness for compassion is somewhat diminished as
compared to readiness of the Australian people to vote and act in
the way they did in 1967. Now all I can say is that we have not
diminished in any way, in our concern for the interests of the
Aboriginal people in this country. I think we have a proud
record on what we have done and within the constraints that exist
today we will try and get a position where the Aboriginal people
do have greater opportunities for secure title the land which
I they have a close association.
STANTON: The planned withnew provisions to cover mining access
toAboriginal land in the Northern Territory to be reviewed two
years after the passage of the amendments. Are you prepared to
give a commitment that aborigines in the Northern Territory will
retain their veto right after that review, or might it be
removed at any time?
PM: I wouldn't believe it would be removed. Let me make the
position quite clear, and I hoped it had been before. when the
Government was developing the concept of its preferred model on a
wider national basis we had not regarded it as appropriate in
that context that there should be this general right of veto
around Australia. And in that context where we had that view we
thought it appropriate to amend the Northern Territory
legislation to bring about a position which was consistent
withthat point of view. We're not then proceeding down the path
of that national model for the reasons which I have tried as
directly and as honestly as I can to put to you. It seemed to us
quite inappropriate, in those circumstances then, to take away a
right in the Northern Territory. What we've done is to propose
that that exercise of the veto shall be amended in a way which
will mean that the veto will have to be exercised at the
beginning. It won't be a situation where we'll say all right we
agree to exploration, but then keep the right of veto as a lever,
and a bargaining position in respect to the rewards, or
compensation you're going to get in the event of actual mining.
Now we believe that this is appropriate. We regard it as fair by
the Aboriginal people themselves and will produce a situation in
the Northern Territory which will properly meet the interests of
both sides, if you want to put it that way. Now the purpose of
the review will be to see how that system works out, but there
would be no reason in my view why you would change the
fundamentals of it.
MALONE: Do you have any idea who leaked the 1986/ 7 Federal
Budget strategy document to the Sydney Morning Herald and when
can we expect a sacking?
PM: No is the answer to the first question and that will no
doubt please many of you because I know you have a vested
interest in the continuity of the leaking process. I don't want
to leave you with the impression that we are in a state of high
anxiety about this issue. I think we're handling it calmly.
Obviously it would be quite dishonest of me to say that I'm not
A
disturbed by the fact of the leak. No government of any
political colour or persuasion likes to see the leaking of a
significant document. I didn't like seeing it. I'm disappointed
that it happened. We're looking at the issue and we're handling
it in our usual competent and cool fashion.
DODD: I refer to your midterm magpie campaign and I'd like to
ask you as most ALP strategists seem to think that the length of
the last election campaign was one of the factors that lead to a
swing against you and basically because it made people bored, do
you believe that launching a campaign midterm will bore people
silly and subsequently you'll get an even more adverse reaction.
And finally can I ask are you going to give a cast iron assurance
that it is in fact a midterm campaign and that you have
absolutely no intention of going to the polls before the end of
next year?
PM: The answer is yes, I'm sure it won't bore them because
there's a very large difference between doing what we're doing in
the sense of sharing our pride with the people of Australia for
our joint achievement in getting 600,000 jobs. I really mean
what I say. I believe that that's been a joint effort and
endeavour of this great Australian nation and I think it's right
that we share pride in it. So it's not the start of anything
like you talk about and yes we won't be having an early election.
I'm fascinated by this speculation about an early election. I
mean I just don't know where it arose, I mean other than from the
obvious fact that people say you must be as cynical as the Libs
because whenever they saw, and it did occasionally arise in the
past that the Labor Party got into a bit of disarray, it had a
few problems, when that happened the Libs used to say wacko
here's a good chance for an election. Now because that was that
was the cynical and consistent attitude of the Conservatives
there seems to be an assumption that I would operate the same
way, because I see an opposition in total disarray, an opposition
of historically proportioned incompetence, it's seems to be
su~. gested that I would do a Malcolm, or a someone else. No sir.
we will go full term.
JOURNALIST: ( Niki Savva) Niki Savva of the Melbourne Sun, Prime
Minister. PM: Hey, the headlines are wrong today Niki.
JOURNALIST: Which ones.
PM: The Sun headlines.
JOURNALIST: All of them?
PM: I only saw the one edition and that one was wrong.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, isn't it true that leaks are a fact of
political life and no action you can take will stop them and do
you agree with some Ministers that the latest leak could have
wrecked the Budget processes?
PM: They do seem to be a fact of life so far. I mean I haven't
suffered anything as grievous as whoever that mischievous person
is on the Opposition front bench who leaked the details of that
disastrous meeting that John Howard had with the Business
Council. I mean that was just unbelievable that anyone could do
that. But, yes these sorts of things do seem to be a fact of life
that the odd document seems to leak out. The answer to the second
part of your question is no. It has not wrecked the Budget
process. I mean I wished in a sense I could do a public leak
myself of a document and sort of share with you the beauty of the
letter of the seven because it is a very sensible letter, a very
sensible letter. A letter which recognises explicitly, I mean the
final paragraph, that the decisions that will have to be taken in
the budgetary process will have to be taken within the
appropriate fiscal environment. And having said that and I
recognise that they put their case. That's perfectly natural that
Ministers who have important portfolio responsibilities
particularly in the welfare area, are going to fight as hard as
thqy can to try and see that the things that they regard as
important are going to be protected. I wouldn't respect my
Ministers in those areas if they didn't fight as hard as they
possibly could. Now having said that I, of course, was unhappy
( ii' about the fact that the letter was leaked but I had no problems
about the letter itself at all. Let me make that quite clear, no
problems about the letter. And the Budget processes have started
and we will, as we go now into our fourth Budget, we will be as
successful as we have conspicuously been in our first three
Budgets. That is, we will properly balance the requirements of
responsible macro-economic management to create the conditions
which will be conducive to sustained non-inflationary growth
with, at the same time, protecting the interests of those in the
community most deserving of government assistance. We have been
successful in that. We don't have to come to the Australian
people and say trust us, we'll do it because we have got the runs
on the board. That is the way we have operated successfully to
this point. We will do it again in the preparation of the 1986/ 87
Budget. JOURNALIST: ( David Barnett) David Barnett, Mr Hawke.
PM: Yes David.
JOURNALIST:........ and suggests to you that over the past three
years there has been a movement of transfer of power and
authority to the ACTU which is quite remarkable to such an extent
that a newspaper quite literally suggested that Mr Kelty was now
the most powerful person in the
PM: They used to say that about me while I was President of the
ACTU. I obviously didn't have the same judgment and even moved to
a less powerful position.
JOURNALIST:..... taken up by the opposition leader and I might
suggest there has been a diminution in the authority of the
government and of the Prime Ministership. What prospect do you
think there would be for a coalition government to try and
reverse that process, to try and take back some of the authority,
some of that responsibility that has now moved to the ACTU?
PM: Well, I am not quite sure how you describe an assumption on
a mistaken premise but that's what the question constitutes. The
assumption that the coalition government will be coming back into
power in the foreseeable future is something which I repudiate.
But the premise is mistaken. Now let's be quite clear about this.
Let's get the nonsense and rhetoric out of the way. What I said
to the Australian people in February/ March of 1983 was this, I
said to them look you have now had seven and a half years of one
particular approach to government. That is an approach which
takes the view that working people and their organisations out
there are a hostile camp. They come from another planet almost
and that good government demands confrontation with them. I said,
well just have a look at what it has produced. It has produced
the worst economic crisis in 50 years. The phenomenon of
simultaneous, double digit inflation and unemployment with high
levels of industrial disputation. That's what the approach of
fighting, taking on antagonistically the representatives of
ordinary working men and women has produced. And I didn't pull a
swifty on the people of Australia. I said to them openly there in
1983 now look there is a better way of doing this. I said what we
are going to be about is the first step of national
reconciliation. Now that was not rhetoric. It was about bringing
them together not treating trade unionists and their
organisations or employers and their organisations as enemies but
as important constituents of Australian society and of the
Australian economic process. Now you don't make sense of that
promise by saying alright you have elected me now I am not going
to move to give effect to that promise. No one can say we didn't
do it fairly openly. we had the Summit, we put the Accord there.
The Accord was drawn up during the election campaign openly there
in Melbourne. I saw what it was about, what it promised, the
processes of consultatin not just on economic management but on a
wide range of issues. There it was. what they got was what they
saw. And then we said we will now proceed to create the
mechanisms for fleshing that out. And we created the Economic
Planning Advisory Council. And I can say to you that nothing has
given me greater pride as Prime Minister than to sit down and
chair successive meetings of EPAC where you have had leading
representatives of the business community sitting there, and they
won't mind me saying this, in admiration at the way in which
representatives of the trade union movement have not simply
expressed a point of view about the interests of their own
people. But have responsibly and constructively said these are
the sorts of things including restraints within our campaign
which need to be followed if we are going to try and maximise the
opportunity for growth in this country. I make no apology about
this that I sit down and talk with these people it is what I have
promised and what has come out of it. We have got out of this
process the highest rate of employment growth in the history of
this country, the highest rate of employment growth in any
country in the world. we have got out of it, out of the situation
where we have handed over, in inverted commas, control to the
ACTU, we have got out of it the restoration of the most
competitive position that this country has had for 15 years. We
have got back a restoration of profit levels to the highest
position in 15 years, the reduction of real unit labour costs to
the best position in 15 years. Is that something which is against
the interests of employers, that they are now more competitive
than they have been for 15 years. Is it against their interests
C that as a result of talking with the ACTU and getting their
co-operation with reduced real unit labour costs. We have given
the employers back the capacity for productive investment that
they never had before under the situation of antagonism. I make
no apology for that. There is nothing of which I am more proud.
JOURNALIST: ( Peter Bowers) Peter Bowers, Sydney Morning Herald.
Prime Minister, in your 1983 election speech you promised to lift
age pensions to 25% of average weekly earnings in the three year
term of government. In your 1984 election speech you qualified
that undertaking by saying you would try to achieve the
target in the next three years. Now in what you have referred to
in your speech today and I quote " our goals of greater efficiency
and greater equity", what steps do you propose to take in your
next three years to lift age pensions to 25% of average weekly
earnings? PM: Peter, it will remain a continuing objective. We have got
the position, as you know because you are a close student of the
economics of government, we have got a position where we don't
have unlimited capacity to pursue all our social objectives
simultaneously. And what has characterised our approach in the
three years of government, as I think you appreciate, is that we
have sought to target the areas of greatest need and they have
been particularly the situation of single parents with children
and there have been very, very significant increases in outlays
in that and related areas pensioners who are renting and other
areas of signifcant increases in outlays. So you have sought
those areas pensioners who really are in the greatest need and
have given the greatest increases there. I repeat now that as we
go through the next period we will not abandon that objective. We
will seek to obtain it. It will be dependent, the timing of it
will be dependent upon our assessment of the economic capacity of
the community. We don't as a government Hawke, Keating, those
27 people in the ministry, it is not our money it is the
community's. We are agents for the community, we are trying to in
a growing society and one where we are trying to get greater
equity, are trying to take as the first steps for the improvement
three years a very considerable increase in employment. If at
some stage down the track I believe that it is appropriate to set
some sort of figure, it would be done. I don't see any sense in
which it is necessary now. We are not a Party coming in untested
and seeking the endorsement of the Australian people. We are a
government which has now shown its, I think, unrivalled
competence in this area. I don't think a statement of targets is
necessary. JOURNALIST: ( Paul Kelly) Paul Kelly from News Ltd, Mr Hawke. You
said in your speech that the world doesn't owe us a living but
the world is making pretty tough for us at the moment. Our trade
account is declining and this has forced your Government into
imposing a monetary policy which has led to a significant
economic slow down so severe that the Treasury document published
yesterday cast grave doubts on the Government's capacity to
continue with job creation next year. In the light of the
international situation and your statement in your speech that
the Accord is flexible, can you countenance the possibility of a
renegotiated Accord during the course of the year if a lower wage
outcome is necessary in order to ensure that job creation is
maintained? I have got a second question as well.
PM: Well, let me deal with the first one first. I mightn't share
power with the ACTU but I do with madame President. Let me just
quickly make what I think is a relevant point in regard to that
first question, Paul. we renegotiated the Accord and we did it at
a time where there was an enormous amount of cynicism as to
whether the 2% that we negotiated, 2% discount that we negotiated
would be anywhere near adequate for the impact of the
arrangement....... it took from depreciation that had taken place
that would occur through 1985 the price impact. But in fact all
the evidence that we have got now suggests that the 2% that we
negotiated last year, ahead of the event, will virtually exactly
correspond with identifiable inflation impact of the depreciation
during 1985. Now in those circumstances we don't see it as
neceossary to go for further renegotiations. I simply make the
point and it is all that is appropriate to make now that yes, the
Accord is flexible. I don't hypothesise that we are going to have
the emergence of a situation where any further negotiation is
necessary. I simply flag as I have before, there is the
flexibility within the Accord. it is a matter of public record
that we have acknowledged that and the ACTU has. But I am not
saying that on my reading of the situation that I believe it is
necessary, as we see it now, to seek to exercise that
flexibility.
JOURNALIST: ( Paul Kelly) The Federal Government is looking at
the proposed Holmes a Court takeover of BHP to make an assessment
as to whether there will be any revenue loss involved in the
takeover and if it hasn't will ensure that it does impart the the
Government's ongoing review of this?
PM: Yes, we have addressed that question, Paul, and as I think
is known we will be meeting this afternoon with representatives
of BHP and tomorrow morning with representatives of Bell. And as
well as what we have already done, in terms of our own
investigation, questions will be directed to the people with whom
we are speaking that will be relevant to that issue.
JOURNALIST: ( Geoff Kitney) Geoff Kitney of the National Times,
Mr Hawke. Just following on from Paul's question about BHP. There
has been a suggestion today that an appropriate way to look at
this question would be through the Steel Industry Authority as
suggested by John MacBean. I wondered if you could offer your
reaction to that?
PM: It was suggested, Geoff, that section 7 of the Act provides
that capacity. Section 7 sets out the obligations of the
Authority to investigate matters affecting the steel industry.
They put that in general terms and then they particularised the
sorts of things that can be looked at. And I think it is arguable
that within the terms of section 7 of the Act that you could ask
for some sort of inquiry there. I accept that it is arguable but
what we have done and I think it is the appropriate course action
is to say well, ultimately the Government has to come to
decisions on these matters and we think it is more appropriate
that we should directly speak with both BHIP and with the
representatives of Bell and Mr Holmes a Court, address ourselves
to these issues but the next point which is directly relevant to
what you have said is that following those discussions I will,
and I have already arranged for us as a group of Ministers to
meet with the Steel Industry Authority's Mr Roberts to discuss
with him the outcome of the discussion that we will have then
held with the representatives of the two groups.
JOURNALIST: ( Bill Goff) Bill Goff from AAP, Prime minister.
Change of pace for the last over of the day back to the
Aboriginal land rights question. Both yourself and Mr Foley have
now expressed some satisifaction of the progress made by the
States towards the securing of land tenure....... I have two
questions. Is the preferred model of the Commonwealth now
completely irrelevant or will the Federal Government reconsider
the introduction of national legislation if some or all States
fai~ l to make further progress towards the standards of the
preferred model within a reasonable time?
PM: It is not irrelevant Bill. It contains the statement of the
4..: Government's principles, the desirable objectives in this issue
of trying to get secured title for Aboriginals in regard to land
with which they have a traditional association. That is the
objective and the preferred model sets out considerations which
are relevant to the achievement of that objective. I have stayed
in fairly constant touch with my Minister. on this he reports
regularly to me and I must say that his reporting to me is one of
optimism about the way in which negotiations are going. There is
no doubt that as far as Western Australian is concerned there
will as a result of the agreement that has been reached, which
will go both with the question Bill, of title of the land and
also with the question of improved infrastructure. I mean we have
made a joint commitment now with the intrusion of considerable
funds to provide a significant upgrade of infrastructure within
the areas to which they will get secure title. Now I can only say
that on the reports that Clyde Holding makes to me I believe that
we have grounds for considerable optimism under this approach and
therefore I don't think the question that you put arises. We will
12
positively continue those negotiations and try and have this
co-operative approach with the States because I am certain, I
think there can be very little doubt about this, if you can get
the objectives through co-operation with the States, the
Aboriginal people themselves are going to be able to enjoy the
outcome in a much better environment than in one of
confrontation.
ENDS