PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, LAKESIDE HOTEL, 7 AUGUST 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: What is your reaction to David Lange's demise?
PM: Well, I'm sorry that David felt it necessary to make
that decision. I had some indication that it might be
happening. I think it's an altruistic decision and I think
that David Lange's made the decision, he's come to the
conclusion that the interests of the Government and of his
Party, are more likely to be advanced if he made the
decision that he did. I think it's an entirely altruistic
decision. Let me say, that it's a matter of record that
David and I have had some policy differences, most
particularly, of course, in regard to the decision I've
taken in regard to the visits of nuclear ships from the
United States. We've agreed to differ on that. But let me
say this, that I've had a lot of work together with David
Lange at three levels there's the bilateral level, there's
the regional level and the broader international level. I
pay an unqualified tribute to the way in which, in those
areas, putting the other policy differences aside to which I
have referred, in those areas David Lange has always been
constructive, supportive. I'm sure that the economic
relationship between New Zealand and Australia has been
significantly advanced as a result of the way that the two
of us working together have accelerated the Closer Economic
Relations framework. In the South Pacific he has always
supported our initiative, we've worked together well there
and in the broader Commonwealth area I make the same
comment. So, in total, I've lost a good working partner in
all those areas and, putting aside the basic areas of
difference that we had, he has been a constructive working
partner across the Tasman.
JOURNALIST: What was-the forward warning you were given?
PM: Well, that's a matter between David and myself.
JOURNALIST: Anzus?
PM: That's a matter for New Zealand. At all times we've
made quite clear to the New Zealand Government what our
views are on this, but in the end we've said to them, as
we've said to the United States, these things are a matter
for decision by the Government of New Zealand. Now whether
-2-
PM ( cont): the resignation of David Lange will make any
difference, I can't say. That's a matter for New Zealand.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you concerned that you
might have sent out the wrong signals on another round
of tax cuts in a time when the Government's still trying to
get us to tighten our belts?
PM: I never send out wrong signals. What often happens is
that people get wrong interpretations of quite clear and
unequivocal things that I say and I can't be responsible for
that. Let me make it quite clear. I was asked a question
yesterday about the possibilities of what might happen in
the area of taxes, particularly viz a viz wages. I said no
more and no less, as the transcript quite unequivocally
shows, that that was a theoretical possibility. Let me
remind you of what's happened. As we came up to prepare for
the situation in 89/ 90, we had discussions with the ACTU
earlier in 89 and we arrived at a decision which was
economically responsible. That is where we had a projected
wages outcome which was related to the decision we were
going to make in regard to taxes. The significant surplus
of the year 89/ 90, the year that we're now in, has been
involved in that decision. Now all I have said is that as
we come up to think about what we will do for 1990/ 91 then
that question could be on the table. I said quite clearly,
the transcript shows it quite clearly, I said now that's a
possibility but I said we will make the decisions which are
economically responsible. of course, in making that
decision, our concerns about how the current account is
going, will be pre-eminent in our considerations. So my
statement, quite clear and logically unexceptional.
JOURNALIST: Have you had a talk with Mr Keating about these
PM: Mr Keating has had to go to Sydney. He's had a funeral
he's had to attend there. But I can assure you that the
position between the Treasurer and myself is as it has been
for a long time. one of cordiality, of at oneness on our
commitment to make sure that we make the right economic
decisions for the future welfare of this country. We have
been working extraordinarily closely together. our
relationship, as I think you will find if you ask him, our
relationship has never been closer and more productive than
it is now. It's a bit of a beat-up that I've noticed in at
least one paper today and it will make no difference to
that. JOURNALIST: in the last 24 hours?
PM: Not in the last 24 hours.
-3-
JOURNALIST: Are workers going to be happy with a
national wage hearing that's going to be boosting income
between $ 10 and $ 15 and will they want more?
PM: You're referring to the decision that's just been
announced are you? I haven't seen the decision yet so I'd
prefer to have a look at the decision before I make any
comment if you don't mind.
JOURNALIST: Isn't there a danger in raising just a
possibility of tax cuts next year that you're raising
expectations PM: No. You see the only danger I have is that people like
yourselves will try and read much more into a clear, simple,
unequivocal statement than that will bear and carry. We
live in a society where people like yourselves will do your
best to beat something up and make it a beast to carry more
than it's entitled or able to carry. I suggest that you
read very carefully what I said yesterday. It was clear.
Put down the hypothetical possibility that as we come to the
end of this financial year and look to the future that that
is something that could be on the table. But there is
nothing more to be done in ' 89-90 out of what will be the
considerable surplus for this year. Because that's already
been done.
JOURNALIST: If it's not a serious option Mr Hawke why raise
it?
PM: I'm a very polite person as you would've known from
your long association with me. If I get asked a question
from anyone, including yourself, I take it at its face
value. I look at it and I analyse it logically and say well
these are possibilities. So I discharge my responsibility
of being polite, cooperative, analytical, constructive to
you. I suggest that you should reciprocate and be precisely
the same in analysing what I say.
JOURNALIST: A new New Zealand Prime Minister. Will it
affect the relationship between the two countries?
PM: If we don't say that it must have some effect then we'd
deny the influence of personality. I'll be the last person
to deny that. Because I think it would make a hell of a
difference to the welfare of this country if I weren't Prime
minister. Now of course a change in leadership will make a
difference. But let me say this. It's assumed they
haven't made the decision yet have they it's assumed I
think that Geoffrey Palmer would succeed Mr Lange. I know
Geoffrey Palmer well. I've had the opportunity of meeting
with him, not only privately but in a number of matters
where we've been engaged in policy-making decisions. I have
a very high regard for Geoffrey Palmer both as a
personality, in terms of his capacity, he's a very able,
hard working, dedicated man. I know that his attitude
towards Australia is very positive and constructive. So
-4-
PM ( cont): assuming that he is going to be the Prime
Minister, and I think that would be the decision, I can look
forward to working very effectively and well with Geoffrey.
JOURNALIST: Any concerns about the frigates?
PM: They will make their decision about this. I don't
think that the departure of David Lange from the Prime
Ministership will affect that decision. I merely express
the hope that I have before and that is that New Zealand
will see that it is an appropriate decision in the interests
of New Zealand and in the interests of Australian-New
Zealand relations and of the region that they should be
associated with the project. I trust that that's the
decision they'll make.
ends