4 S R A L I( A
PRIME MINISTER
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
INTERVIEW WITH MURRAY NICOLL, RADIO 3AW 2 DECEMBER 1986
N. I notice tlhe Herald says you're here electioneering, sharing your smile
with tax-payers, is that what you're doing in Melbourne?
H. Oh, well you always Lake with 75 grains of salt what the Herald says.
No. I guess a PM in that sense is always on the election trail, you're
always trying to tell the story of what your Govt. is doing; expose
) he inadequacies of your oponents. But it's not electioneering in the
sense that thore is 41n electionIaninent.
N. I suppose you're still selling the FBT too aren't you?
H. No, I'm not. ThaL's I think sold, the changes that we made, Murray,
have been very widely accepted, and those changes are now seen as part
of a general tax reform, which is being about significant tax cuts now,
more tax cuts in July, which will bring about overall a much fairer and
more efficient tax system. I don't think there is much of a selling
job Lo be done ' in the FBT now.'
N. r. ric Risstrom says don't expect further tax cuts in July, is he barking
up the wrong tree?
H. Well he's got absolutely no right to say that. The decision of the Govt.
is embodied in legislation and that's why we wanted to make it quite
j1car that it's not simply this December that we're getting a tax cut,
but by ensuring that it goes into legislation it will be there and people
can know and plan on getting the second stage of the tax cuts in July
next year.
N. No doubt aboutIthat at all?
II. No of course there's not.
N. It's been a pretty tough. year for you just looking back on a few of the
issues. This must be about the most rugged you've faced in your
political career?
H. Yes it's been a hard year Murray, but basically tough because of the
groat loss that AusLralia has suffered from the drastic fall in the prices
we get for our exports. And that's as you know lopped about $ 6B off our
National Income and that has meant that responsibly as a Govt. we've
had to take some tough decisions to try and share that around the Aust.
community and then mako the range of decisions whichis going to
put the Australian economy in the best possible position, to take
advantage of the big depreciation in our dollar which makes us more
competitive against imports, more comnetitive on OuvarmAR mrk-i... 1
2
So we're engaged in a range of decisions which is looking at the medium
to long term to put Australia in the best possible situation for the
future.
N. I think your tax-payers are looking at you saying ' yeah you're biting
the bullet' but they're a little bit concerned as to just how you're
doing it. low you're perceived to be performing publicly?
Ii. Well it's always the case Murray, that when a Govt. has got its head
down ard tackling the very hard problems and making a range of
complicated decisions it's very much easier for your political
opponents and for interest groups in the community to just pick off a
bit here and there and attack you. It takes a time for the whole
package, the whole programme to be seen in its entirity. But that
is emerging and it is being understood and accepted by the community.
I 1 want to say this particularly that I have enormous pride in the
Australian community and that the people who've been asked to accept
sacrifices, and I think particularlyo& he pensioners; I just can't speak
too highly of them, we've delayed the pension increases for 6 weeks
now and 6 weeks in the middle of next year, and they've. just been
fantastic the way they've said ' well we understand, that there've got
Lo be some sacrifices and we're pleased to be part of it'. Now that
has been increasingly understood. You can't, the simple fact is
no country, whether it's Australia or anywhere else, you can't lose
$ 6D of your National Income and then go on as though nothing's happened.
SThe way you're going about things lately, people are saying, and
Gough whitlam is one of them: that'you've lost touch with the electorate,
that the Govt. has forgotten what it's like, and you in particular
at ) P ul Keating in particular, forgotten what it'-s like to live in
the real world?
. Well he and they are wrong, no times are the same as previous times.
I'm not here to comment upon the Whitlam Govt. nor to comment upon his
comments. Yodø~ aht to talk about that? ( Beg your pardon) you don't want to talk
about that?
Well I'm not going to personalise is what I'm saying. If I wanted to
I could obviously talk about his Govt., his economic competence and so on.
But what is gained, what advantage do I do by entering into that. My
job is to say what'we're doing and to make the point that if either
Mr whitlam, or anyone else thinks that you can have the drastic change
In economic, circumstances that have been imposed upon Australia and
then ignore them, then I'm here to say that you can't do that,
That if you lose $ 6B of your National Income that there are tough decisions
that havo to be made. I'll also point to the social ecord of this
l e p , r L. i.
3.-
Govt. which is second to none. We, for instance, you compare, I talked
about pensions a while ago. In the 7 years of the Fraser Govt. the
real increase in the value of pensions was 1 1.5% increase in the real
valuc of the pension. By this month the increase in real value of the
pension under my Govt. will be of the order of And so at a time
when cconomic problems beset this country we've had to make tough
economic decisions, we've made them, we've got the economy into leaner
more efficient shape than it's been before. But we haven't lost sight
of the needs of those people in the conunity who depend upon the rest
of the communiLy for assistance.
I. Gough Whitlam r cally wasn't talking about, in the comments that are
reportcd from him, fro Adelaide, wasn't talking about economics, he
was talking more your Labor philosophy. Be says you've gone to water
oi. uman rights: he says that you've distanced yourself from his style
of Govt., that's noL necessarily a bad thing as you point out: and things
such as administraLive fees in tertiary institutions: that sort of thing.
He says that you've gone to water and you're a weak Labor Govt. and
he says the chqnces of you being there next election are not good?
Well I'm not going to enLer into a public debate with Mr Whitlam.
If he believes he is serving the interests of Labor by getting into
that sort of exercise, Lhat's a judgement that he has to make and he
has to live with it. I'm not going to satisfy those who would like
to see some public brawl between Mr. Whitlam and myself, I'm not
going to enter into it.
Okay, somebody. you will want to talk to and about is Allan Border.....
Bc ) er discussion ( who is Border a metaphor for??)
Speaking of lotting it hang out, you've been doing a bit of that
in Federal Parliament lately, with your language, you've copped a bit
for that too. ( Murray I just..) It's true! It's true!
It's just one sentence in a year and I think that it's a bit unkind,
I moan it's like if I watched you in action for a year behind here
and picked out sentence of the year and said that's typical of your
performance, you'd say that's a bit unfair Mr. PM? One sentence.
It was a good sentence though wasn't it?
Oh no no. Well, -it's for you to make a judgement bn whether it's a good
sentence. Just a couple of words slipped out. Look. I take the view
and I think if you look at my performance in the Parliament while I'm
strong in attacking people about their positions, I am not one who
goes into personal attacks, if I attack people it's on the basis of
-4-
positions they've adopted. I don't think the cause of parliamentary
democracy is served by personalised attacks and..
N. Seen a bit of that lately too?
I. Yeah we have, and I don't like it. But as far as language is concerned
I, it's sometimes difficult,! and I think I did lapse a bit there in
that one phrase I mean one likes ttgh atbe colourful, I mean you want to get
attention and so on, and I concede in that particular sentence I think I
nt a bit over the dividing line between colour and what's appropriate. But
I think if you look at my record, I've tried to play my part in the
Parliament in noL descending into vulgarity and into personal abuse.
BeCaUsC I don't think Lhat helps the institution.
N. I'm relieved to hear you say that..
H. Well I believc-it, I'm not saying it because I think it's the right thing
t say, I do believe it. If I make a mistake, I've always in my public
career I've tried to take the view if you make a mistake, it's more
honiest and straightforward to say so.
M. There are reports coming out of Canberra of considerable tension between
you and Paul Keating, are they true?
1. No, the gossip'mongers of this place really amaze me. And talking about
PH loL me just say this again, and I'll get someone right in the sights
on thiu, the National. Times. I've said this before, they are a total
disgrace to journalism. Absolute disgrace. And they will not learn.
I talk with them, afLer I made that attack before, they said ' can we
come and see you'. They caimn and saw me, 1 laid out the details, and
they've done it ugain, this week. I mean the attack they made on the
front page of PK this week in regard to that decision in Chile, saying
tt it had beon done against the advice of Bill Hayden, ( Inaudible word).
Totally untrueunchecked with Keating, and yet there he is he suffers
particularly in these circumstances where he's in the spotlight. NOw
people who pedal these stories without checking them. I mean they
really ought to look in a mirror and examine their conscience. Now
as far as the particular point, the relationship between PK and myself
let me maku it clear. I have enormous respect for the capacity of
Paul. Keating, he's been an integrally important part of tackling the
economic problems of this country. He's applied a fine mind and great
hard work to tackling those problems, including the question of tax
refor,,. Now there's been some misrepresentation of. what I said in the
Parliament, including may I say, Mr Howard couldn't bven when he moved
the censure motion use accurately the language that I used. I said
that what Mr Keating was not of immense consequehce. Now that didn't
carry the implication,-lot me make It quite clear that I didn't, that
5
I thought it wasn't important.
N. That's thu failure to lodge a tax return?
I. It was important the failure. He shouldn't have done it. I said it
couldn't have b6cn condoned. And it couldn't be. It's inexcusable.
But I wanted to make the point that, now let's get some fairness in this
country.
N. You mean fairness to you?
H. No. I mean I'm not talking for myself now because I think by and large
that the people of Australia and the media of Australia are fair to me.
I'm not here. BuL I think there should be a recognition of the
enormous work that Paul Keating has done to face up to the economic
problens of this country. I mean if you look in the area of the floating
o. ) the dollar: the deregulation of the financial sectors the bringing
in of those fanks to make for a more competitive system: the work that
tic's done in the whole area of tax reform. All that is I would think
work og a calibre which when the history books will ( be) written he will
be written up in the front rtiriks of all time quality Treasurers in this
country. Now he made a bad mistake, and I've told him that# he's
acknowledged it, I mean ho acknowledged it without qualification that
it was a mistakc.
I. People don't have the overview though, you see, they just see junk things
happening, they see foolishness and inconsistency and they judge you
by that. And that's what happens.
And people are entitled to be critical of Paul's mistake, and I was
critical to him. But I try and get a balance in these things, I mean
I'...) sure that he will never make that mistake agairt and which of us is
there in this lifc.
Will he be fined for it?
I don't know, the decisions in this matter are totally
a matter for the Commissioner of Taxation, and that's an arms-length
position.
And it's betwccn him and Paul Keating. Purely.
That's right. Let me say this who of us is there, in public life,
who of us is there, who hasn't made a mistake? And I wculd think
some of the mistakes that some people have made arq of greater dimension
than Paul's. Now I'm critical of him. He's critical of himself and he's
going to pay a price for that for some time. But I would have thought
that the Australiun sense of fair play, should say ' okay, Keating you're
wrong, you uwdc a mistake, having said that let's put the whole balance,
lot's look at the hard work, the commitment of this bloke to try and get
a better economy. He's been an important part in the achievement of the
higbcst rate of employment growth in the history of this country.
There are 670,000 Australians, more Australians in jobs now than when
we came to office.
N. Dut you know the public really doesn't take account of that in the
short term?
H. But I think all of us have some responsibility to try and get some
balance in these things. I don't believe I'd be entitled to be listened
to by your listeners seriously, if I just simply came on and said
' look give Paul Keating a fdir go, just leave it at that'. What I
think I am entitled to be heard as saying is ' look, firstly Paul
Keating has made a mistake, it's a bad mistake. Shouldn't have been
done. But I repeat the financial loss is his not the community's.
I -an he's entitled to a refund, as I understand it, he always, he got
the refund before, and so by not putting in the return earlier, it's
meant h hasn't got his refund. Now let's have a pretty fair go. If
we're going to analyse the bloke, put the pluses into the judgement,
I'm simply saying if you look it the balance sheet about PK my View
is that the pluses so very considerably outweigh a significant
minus on this issue.
But people see. hat as a symptom of something that they don't like seeing
happening in politics aL the moment, the general feeling around this
country, if I interpret it correctly, is that they Would dearly love
to soo rederal politicians clean up their act. Get out of the dirt
clanging, got on wiLh the business, I'm not talking Govt. I'm talking
Parliament. And just geL down to business like a Board of Directors,
nc ) likc a bunch of school kids.
Well I don't
Politics is a messy game these days.
I don't find myself dissenting from a view that the Parliament should
lift it's game. I believe that there is too much personalising.
I don't want to be a hypocrite, if a person on the other side says or
dooo something which is wrong, I think that which he says or does,
which is judged to be wrong should be attacked, and attacked strongly,
but I make the distinction between that and attacking the personality,
the individual. And that's why in recent times I've tried to use my
best influence to sce when these sort of things habV arisen that it's
brought to an end. Now, look you don't find me therefore Murray
arguing with you about the desirability of all of us lifting our game.
We all have a responsibility and I think the institution of Parliament
needs to be protected and that's the responsibility of the people in
7-
the Parliamecnt itselfp but let me say this: the responsibility is a
pretty comprehensive thing, I mean if parliamentarians are going to be
continuously subject to abuse and attack then that makes it hard for them.
I think there is a responsibility in the media# for instance, to
recognise the very very hard work that's done by the overwhelming
majority of Parliamentarians. Look I can say that because people
know how har-d I work so I don't have to defend myself. 1m saying it
not just about G~ ovt. members I'm saying it about both sides of
Parliamecnt. The average parliamentarian works very long hours and
in terms of the actual rewards, a lot of them, not all of them, a lot
of-them could do much better outside of the* Parliament.' They work very
long hours, they do have a sense of coiiuiitment, and I say that on both
~ sides of the Parliament. And I think it would just be a little bit
1-irer and 7' ou might get sort of better responses from a lot of your
mem~ bers of Pan,. if there were something on the positive side. I mean
you look at the media, arid be fair..
N. No you look at. the Press Gallery that's different.
H. Wall Okay, ' Che PG as well.
N. They ' re noL the itiedia are they?
H. No no, they're not exclusively,-and they have a major responsibility.
N. And they're about as cloistered as you are in Canberra.
H. Sure, now Murray, if you look at the whole output of the Gallery, but
also the media generally, and tell me how many stories do you see
written about the hard slogging, unreported, undramatic work of members
of Parliament.
N. None.
II. F" of it.
N. Nobody wants* to read that.
H. But what you do is you ge0' 6when they make mugs of themselves, as we've
all been guilty of at times. Highlight it, all that's talked about.
Now I think fairness would suggest..
9J. Cot caught with your pants down that sort of thing?
1. Well I'm not going into that. . I think that fairness suggests that some
coverage of the hard work that's done and the commitment wouldn't be
out of place.
1. No I agrcc, but it will never happen.
I. Well, no it would be ans ideal world I suppose.
1. Listen I'd really like you to explain to me just before you go.
Because I know you've got other commnitments, something that's really
bothered me about your Govt. and has bothered a great many people.
Why are you selling uranium to France?
a
r. Well I can't answer that in 30 seconds, so if you give me.
N. Give you 3 minutes.
H. Right, the decision was made on the basis that we hoped that we
may be ab~ c to use the refusal to supply uranium to France as a lever
to got them to and their objectionable testing of nuclear weapons in
the South Pacific.
N. Can I just stop you there, just very briefly?
H. As lorg as your noL taking it out of my three minutes?
N. No, no, I'll add it on the end. ( Okay) Just glide off on a tangent
for a minute while we're talking about nuclear testing. Do you know
of any plans by the French to shift their testing base out West of this
country?
H. out West of this country?
N. . ah, out South-west of this country to the islands called, damn it
I can't remember what they are, you know it's bound up with the...
H. I don't know of any plans, I think I saw some suggestion, one newspaper
once said about it buL 1 don't know of any plans. I can tell you
I don't know of any such plans. As far as I know they'intend continuing
there in the South Pacific. Now what I was saying was that there was a
hope that it would produce that result. Now the facts are that it
had no such result and what we were doing by) See there was an existing
contract that had been entered into, and so what the Govt. had done is
said well wo will meet the œ inanicial obligation to the producer, the
Auutralian producer, and that was costing in the order of $ 60M. And
thaL simply that we were paying the producer and that uranium was being
kept in drums under a tarpaulin in the Northern Terrority. Now
great pressure that we put on France by doing that was that we
forced them to buy their uranium cheaper, they were able to get their
uranium cheaper on the spot market. Instead of having to pay the contract
price woo a higher price, because we wouldn't sell it to them they were
still getting their uranium but getting it at a cheaper price. So not
only did it have no impact but it was in fact a bonus to them. Now
it's a very hard decision and let me say this to your listeners, including
if I may say so, particularly you young. I understand the emotions
on this irsue but the simple unarguable fact is that we were doing
Prance a favour by al1owing them not to meet their tcontract obligations
but to get urluum cheaper. Now that meant that in these tough budgetary
situations, were we going to pay $ 60M out and gi've an advantage to France
whore that" money wuuld have been available as a result of our decision
to ensure that we didn't have to impose further restraints upon our
-9-
people, those least able in this country to bear that burden.
N. The alternative was comprising your principles which you did.
11. what principle, that we were not added to in our capacity to argue with
France, we haven't diminished our argument to France at all. I've
continued, mny Foreign Minister Bill Hayden, we've continued bi-laterally
and in every multi-national forum to press for a comprehensive test
ban treaty. There's no Govt. and this is recognised in the United
Nations, there fs no Govt. which has pressed harder than my Govt. for
an end to nuclear testing that's recognised. So the fact of providing
uranium to France, under these conditions, let me remind you, there is
a total unqualified guaranteo that not one ounce of Australian uranium
can be uuud in the nuclear weapons programme. It is totally for use
for the generation of power for peaceful purposes.
N. P > le don't believe you can police it well enough to guarantee that?
R. Well, there is not one piece of evidence that we can't, and haven't been.
There is not one piece of evidence that Australian uranium has been
or can be used other than for peaceful purposes. And let me say this
the IAEA has pleaded with Australia to make sure that it retains a supply
for the peaceful cycle, because we have, and it's recognised, we have
the most strinyent safeguards in the world, and to the extent that
Australia doesn't supply countries with less stringent safeguards, or
with no safeguards at all. that means that the international
-nuclear fuel cycle becomes more dangerous. Now that's not an opinion
that is a fact. So if you;, bring all those things together we've continueed
and will continue to use every pressure, effective pressure, we can upon
France for an end to nuclear testing in the South Pacific. We'll uso
Mv pressure we can in the international forums to bring an end to
all. nuclear testing. That we mdde the judgement in these circumstances
that keeping the uranium in the drums up there while France got it's
uranium cheaper was not adding one iota to our capacity to exercise that
pressure. ist you a ton of votes. Lost you a ton of votes.
Wcll if I make judgements on every issue as PM and if-my Govt. makes
judgements on every issue simply on the basis of what is a vote
consequence you won't have responsible Govt.
Plus policy don't forget Hobart.
Policy okay, now i'm saying that the policies of Hobprt and of the'Labor
Party weren't just to be found in one item, we haVe a fundamental economic
and social responsibility and you say, what you're saying is it would
have been for instance, just to impose a further burden on pensioners
-/ t0
10
put off the pension increase for another two weeks and at the same
timc allow France to get its; uranium cheaper, if that's what we would
have donc we would have imposed, if we'd done that we would have imposed
in one way or another, another $ 60M of burden within Aust. and allowed
France to get its uranium cheaper. Now if you say that's principle
okay, you'ro entitled to that but I don't see it. If you could
point to thc fact that this Govt. is in any way, in any way at all
dimininhcd it's position of principle pressure against France, and not
only against France but against all nuclear powers, of saying look
you must have a comprehensive test ban treaty. The reason why Australia
stands so high . in the international forums of the world is because it's
recognicod that we have done more work than any other Govt. in the
world to try and get a comprehensive test ban treaty. And we are
C ) jtlod to take some credit for the fact that at Reykjavik the two
supor powcrs in fact got to the stage of having a proposition about
a comprchensivo test ban treaty on the table. Now that's the way
you pursue principle in an effective way. And not by saying to France
' well we'lJ keep our uranium in the drums under a tarpaulin in the NT
while you can still get your uranium, but get it cheaper and in a more
dangerous way.
4. You haven't convinced me.
1. You don't want to be convinced.
J. No it's not that at all. That's why I asked you.
1. Tell me, Murray.
1. 1 looked for a. reason other than what I have read so far.
f. Well tell me what is wrong with the argument I put. You tell me what's
w. )' q
I. Nothing, nothin.
Okay there's nothing wrong with it..
Economically and logically but you see the Labor Party is all about,
Emotion? P Principle too, no not just cmotion.
But I didn't talk on the basis of anything other than principle, the
principle is that testing, nuclear testing, in this world ought to be
brought to an end. That's the principle, now don't let's talk about
emotion. lhe prinelple is how do you go about bringing an end to nuclear
testing by France and by other countries, s that our principle do-we
want to bring it to an end? Okay?
I'm not talking about that aspect of it, I'm talking about principle,
of your'party setting a policy, and the principle of you being very
loudly anti-nuke all your life, all your career, very loudly anti-nuke
_ h
i
1
now what you're doing is turning that principle around.
9. Well you're wrong, you cannot say that because, you either haven't listened
to what I've said, or you just don't want to listen.
4. 1 listened very carefully.
4I. Tell ma where I'm wrong in saying that we have done more in actual
effective terms to pursue that policy and that principle than any other
Govt.?
q. I can't tell you that, I vanet tell you that.
Well the simple arbwor is there is no other Govt. that's done as much
that's recognised. It's recognised by the Americanb,
it's recognised in the fact that we got the record vote in the
United Nations for election to the Security Council. Now the thing
is that wc are doing that, we've continued to do that in an effective way.
See you've got to say
I. I ) accusing you on behalf of a lot of a lot of Labor adherents...
You're accusing me, you're entitled to do that, but I believe that
the accuser has a responsibility then after he's made the accusation
to refute the argument of principle. I'm saying the principle is
to be committed unqualifiedly to press the case against nuclear testing.
I have not wavered for one moment from that. Because what you're saying
and you will not face up to it is you're saying that by selling
uranium to France or allowing the sale to continue under an existing
contract, that I've walked away from the principle of stopping nuclear
testing. But you will not face up to my question how has that happened,
it hasn't happened in any way there is diminution, not one iota of
diminution in the principle of Hawke and his Govt. against nuclear
testing. It's internationally recognised that we're the most effective
Go in the world in pressing that case. It is internationally
rccognised that in allowing that contract to go ahead our capacity to
press that argument has not been diminished that it wasn't relevant to it.
It's internationally recognised that if we continue to keep the uranium
here the French would have got the benefit, still got the uranium but
at a cheaper price.
How come it almost split your party right down the middle. How come
half your party's arguing aginst you?
I ask you to look at Lhe party at the end of ' 86, of course they were
worried about it . in August, of course and I
And you made the'same explanation you just made.
And I reopoct the emotion that was felt there, but I have a responsibility
as PM to go out and talk with people and listen to them, that's what I've
iono. I haven't sat in Canberra and said, Hawko's right, you're wrong.
12
I've g6ne round, I've talked with people, I've listened with people,
I have written literally, literally, hundreds, and hundreds, and
hundreds of letters, to kids, to party members, party organisations,
community organisations, I would think, it's not hundreds, I would think
it's probably thousands by now. SoI haven't sat back and said now i'm
right, I've gone through the patient task of trying to explain without
rancour the facts of the situation# now that's what I've had to do
I accept my responsibility, and I think at the end of 1986 as we go
into 1987, pooplc6 are saying ' alright we mightn't like the decision
but at least we recognise the integrity with which he and-the'Govt.
took it, we recognise their reasons, and we recognise the fact that
this Govt. has done not only more than any other Govt in the history
of this country but more than any other Govt. in the world relentlessly
to pursue the policies, bi-laterally and in multi-lateral forums against
nul ) ar testing. We are recognised as the nation in the world which
most rolontlessly pursues the achievement of a comprehensive test ban
treaty. And that issue is one of the more serious in what has been a very tough
year for you. Thanks for coming in this afternoon
.1-