PM Transcripts

PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 6 NOVEMBER
1989 E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you expect any other members
of the ALP to be offering public advice about where the
Government's going wrong or have they all just about had a
go by now?
PM: I would hope they wouldn't be. I was pretty straight
forward on Friday in saying that we hadn't had a
particularly good week and the fact that we hadn't had a
particularly good week has apparently led some of my
colleagues to make a few observations. But let me say also
on Friday in the evening I was in Melbourne and we had a
very fine function in Melbourne of the Victorian Branch and
the attitude and the feeling there was enormous. Now I have
made it plain I hope in a way which will be adhered to that
if there are views to be put they should be put within the
framework of the Government and any views should be conveyed
to us. The position is basically quite clear as far as the
Government is concerned. We believe that our fundamental
economic policies are working and working well. They'll
produce the right outcomes and the responsibility is now
upon myself and my colleagues to make this clear and to
continue to show that within the Australian political scene
it is only the Government which has policies which are both
relevant and can work against the snake oil mixture which is
now being peddled by the opposition.
JOURNALIST: What does it say about the Government though,
that there's been this sudden outburst and people the likes
of John Kerin, John Button and the NSW Branch as well?
PM: Well John Button? What are you referring to about John
Button? JOURNALIST: John Button today suggesting that
PM: I was glad you mentioned today because I, not
surprisingly, took the opportunity of looking at the
transcript of the interview he had with Pru and I didn't
find any problem with that. quite a beat up if you
tried to make anything out of what John said. Pru put to
him after eliciting from him that by comparison with what
else was available in the opposition John Howard had a
certain-measure of talent, she then asked him about a March

-2-
economic statement. We another signal about wages
directions and tax directions and John said this; " yes, I
think we need another signal, I agree with that but that's a
matter in terms of what the signals will be and it's a
matter for my Cabinet colleagues, then the Prime Minister to
determine. It's not for me to announce a new program'. Now
that's an eminently reasonable statement by my friend and
colleague, John Button. Let me say on that issue about
signals. We will, as usual, be meeting with the ACTU in
February or March of next year to discuss wages outcome for
the following financial year. We have the situation now
where the existing processes are bedding down, we'll talk to
them again in February or March. There'll be a statement
about wages direction coming out of that and as we've done
in the past we will be consistently and continuously
monitoring the economy. if we had the belief then that we
had to add to the statement about wages outcomes by anything
else then we would make that decision. But let me make it
clear, we have no plans at this stage for a March Statement.
We don't see any need for it but we have consistently shown
since 1983 that in the process of continuously monitoring
what's happening in the economy then we will make the
decisions and the announcements that are necessary. So to
bring that together again, we'll be talking with them in the
beginning of the year about wages, we'll be making a
statement. If there's anything more that needs to be said
or done, then we'll do it. But there is no need to have a
reaffirmation at this stage or indicate a reaffirmation of
Government policy because the policy is working. If you
look at the three elements of it, of fiscal policy, of
monetary policy and wages policy, they're all tight, they
are working. You've got the evidence today again of the ANZ
employment index showing a further slowing down there. The
Westpac Melbourne Institute indicators are showing a slowing
down. So it's clear I believe that the economic policy of
the Government is working and the important thing about that
policy is that it's relevant. The issues facing the country
are the high level of economic activity which brings with it
problems on the external front and on the inflation front
and the evidence is that all three arms of policy are tight
and are working.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, would you prefer your s enior
Ministers if they had criticisms, for example about the
pilots' dispute or about the way which the balance is needed
between environment and development and indeed whether a
signal should be sent out, that they should make these
concerns known within the confines of Cabinet and did you
transmit this view to them today in Cabinet?
PM: In the Cabinet today I had a brief opening statement to
them where I indicated more or less what I'd said publicly
last week, not the most glorious week last week, that there
was no need for any concern about where the Government was
heading and that we would continue with the existing
directions of policy. For any observations they wanted to
make there was the opportunity to make them. There was no

-3-
question asked, no criticism made, as you would expect there
not to be for the reasons that I'd put, that the
fundamentals of policy are working, we're going in the right
directions. Let me say this, as I've said in Sydney on
Friday, I don't think I could've been more open and direct
in acknowledging that we as I have put it in my language
on Friday a less than glorious week, last week. All of
us, including myself have some responsibility for that and
in that context I think you've got to ask yourself well why
is it that it was perhaps the most noticeable? That was
because in the six and a half years we've been in Government
this Government has dominated both the Parliament and the
political agenda. Now when you have a situation that the
Opposition's at last come out of its cocoon and produced
what it calls an Economic Action Plan then there is going to
be some difference of emphasis, if they have a relatively
good week, that's going to be noticed. But let me say this;
that increasingly what I said would happen is happening and
that is that you're going to have more and more
concentration upon the woeful inadequacies of this miscalled
Economic Action Plan. I mean it is being ridiculed now,
you've seen it in today's Press. The different world of Dr
Hewson, the world which throws out all the economic
certitudes and relationships, the snake oil salesman on
behalf of Mr Peacock and the Opposition, are going to
miraculously now remedy simultaneously the problems of
inflation, unemployment, interest rates and foreign debt.
It has been suggested by one commentator it's real Nobel
Prize material, to do something that's never been done
before. Now what's going to happen now properly is that
there is going to be a zeroing in on this snake oil policy
which is being peddled. It is both economically absurd and
it is socially obnoxious and the pattern of politics in the
period between now and the next election will involve two
things. It will involve an analysis of the record of the
Government and obviously by comparison with what they've
done when they were in office and it's also going to involve
particularly an analysis of what both parties can promise
for the future. On the basis of what's been advanced by the
Opposition, they are in terms of the Australian society
going to promise without any possible question of argument a
return to a massively divided and confrontationist Australia
on the one hand and an economic policy which is as I say,
absurd. JOURANLIST: Have you or do you intend to make contact with
Mr Loosley or Mr Carr about their comments over the weekend?
PM: I have spoken with Mr Loosley.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, can rural Australia expect any
new spending initiatives before the next election?
PM: There's a submission before the Cabinet today which
deals with both a review of what we've done in regard to
non-metropolitan Australia, which is of course a remarkable
series of achievements already and a consideration of some
further possible initiatives. That's a matter to be
considered.

JOURANLIST: What did you say to Mr Loosley, Mr Hawke?
PM: What did I say to Mr Loosley? I think that probably
it's a sensible thing that the conversation I had with Mr
Loosley should remain between Stephen and myself. As far as
I'm concerned, it will.
JOURNALIST: What was the tone of your conversation?
PM: Very genial. My relations with as with my discussion
with John Kerin the other night you see there is a
difference, a fundamental difference between the two sides
of politics in Australia today and just let's spend a very
short time on them. I haven't attempted to deny that there
have been some statements on my side of politics that
probably would've been better not made publicly, but these
are the differences of emphasis that have been made by
people within a party which is fundamentally united about
our philosophy and our direction for this country and they
are statements made between people who have essentially a
sensible working relationship and a shared commitment to the
policies and philosophy of this Government. Against that on
the other side of politics you have people who simply
despise one another and deeply despise one another. I mean
you won't have a situation on the Government side of having
two senior figures, one, the Leader and the other, the
previous Leader, that is Peacock and Howard making it
publicly clear that they simply do not trust one another.
The divisions and the hatreds on the other side of politics
are profound. Here and on the Government side in the recent
week or so you've had some concerns about emphasis
expressed. I think they would've been better expressed
directly within the private processes of the Party and of
the Government. That hasn't happened. But the contrast
between the two sides remains profound.
JOURNALIST: Why do you believe that this is happening now,
Mr Hawke? Why are the outbreaks of publicity happening
right at this time? Is it because of the economic of
your position?
PM: Because of?
JOURNALIST: The opposition's economic statement?
PM: I think the fact that they've now produced a statement
obviously changes the political scenario somewhat because up
until that point they had nothing to run on other than the
critical observations they wanted to make about Government.
Now they've put out a policy and as we acknowledged at the
time, if part of that policy involved the presentation of
certain handouts, that's going to be attractive to some
people until those things are analysed. They've created a
somewhat different framework. But in no long term sense,
one which is of any concern or adverse, of creating adverse
problems for the Government. On the contrary when the time
passes and there's more and more analysis of the social

inequity and the economic irrelevance of their statement,
the more that goes on the worse for them and the better for
the Government. Also I suppose you're reaching the end of
what has been a pretty hectic year, a hard working year.
All my Ministers and I don't think there's any argument
between us on this all of us are very hard working people
and I guess we'll all be looking forward to the break at the
end of the year. But I look forward to it not merely
because it's the end of a hard working year, but I truly
look forward to it in terms that within this period we're
going to be able to position ourselves, in my judgement,
remarkably well to demolish the policies which are now
emerging from the Opposition. Because without any question
those policies are now, as I said on Friday night, creating
a position of a fundamental ideological divide. There will
be no election, in my judgement, in the post-war period more
important than the upcoming election. Any nonsense that's
been talked by inadequate analysis about this being a
political scene that two parties of the centre with only
peripheral issues of difference between them must surely now
have been absolutely eliminated in the minds of any thinking
person. You've got a stark alternative and I'm looking
forward, eagerly, to exposing the starkness of that
alternative and what constitutes the differences between our
two parties.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you've said that you had yourself
contributed somewhat to last week's problems. How would you
identify your own did you go wrong?
PM: I think I was a bit tired at the end of the week and
some of my answers were a bit long and probably a bit dreary
and that probably didn't give the sort of stimulus in which
a leader ought to
JOURNALIST: What about the matter of the disputes?
PM: Well I'm glad you asked that and I do wish that in the
reporting on it there would consistently at least be an
0 accurate reporting of what I said. I said I mean
adjectives do mean something I said quite clearly that the
industrial dispute was over and let me make it clear before
going back to that, I at that point made it quite cl-ear, as
I do now, that the problems that are associated with that
original dispute, that the problems associated with that.
dispute are still with the industry, that there is a
rebuilding problem going on and I at no point then or since
seek to diminish the problems and not only the individuals
but also particularly the tourism industry have suffered and
to some extent are still suffering. I think it was less
than fair to the reporting of what I've said that that
wasn't made clear. I understood then and I understand now
that individuals and the tourism industry have suffered and
are continuing to suffer from the aftermath of what was
originally that industri-al dispute. But it was more the
point I was making was more than merely a technical one and
no-one I notice has questioned the accuracy, the technical
accuracy of what I've said. But there's more to it

-6-
Michelle, than merely a technical and legal point. The
reality which must be understood is that as a result of the
ending of the industrial dispute in the technical sense, the
reality that flows from that is that the AFAP has no part in
the rebuilding operation that's going on. This is a point
that I wanted to make clear and which is indisputedly true.
The AFAP has no part in the resolution of the rebuilding
program which is going on and that's not because it's
something that I wanted to produce but it's a result of
their decision. It's not merely the resignation of their
members from the two airlines but when that resignation was
followed up by the taking of their long service leave
entitlements and the complete severance of the relationship
of their members with the two airlines, then that fact
which is a fact and not a Prime Ministerial opinion is
relevant to the processes now of rebuilding. What is
happening now as you've seen is what I said would happen.
That is once they made that decision to sever themselves,
then the airlines, with the assistance of the Government,
have gone about the process of rebuilding airline services
in this country. As you've seen, according to the
statements of the airlines they have now provided a
scheduled service, announced service according to which
people are able to book into December and then they will be
doing the further scheduling for the period from January
through to March. So I want to make it clear that I was
making not merely a legal point which is unarguably,
indisputably correct but it's also more than that, it's to
establish the point that now in the resolution of the
problems which are continuing following that industrial
dispute, in the resolution of the problems that are real
then the AFAP their decision has no part in resolving
those issues in rebuilding the airlines.
JOURNALIST: You indicated earlier on that after the talks
between the Government and the ACTU next year, there'll be
some sort of statement on wages direction and possible wages
outcomes. Is that likely to be a broad statement which
could also include matters such as tax which
PM: No, I specifically went to that, Paul. I specifically
went to that. I said there will definitely be a statement
coming out of that meeting in terms of wages. In terms of
our analysis and continual monitoring of the economy, what's
happening if and we get to that stage it's our judgement
that there needs to be more done or said, then that will be
done. But we haven't at this stage got any plans for what
you might call a March Statement. But if we regard it as
necessary to add to what we'll be saying and doing in regard
to wages, that will be done.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, is there room in that sort of wages
statement for a component relating to child care?
PM: well conceivably there could be. We'll be reviewing
all of our areas of relevant policy and by that I mean
within the context of the social wage approach our wages
policy as you know has this essential foundation and that is

that we seek and have achieved successfully, restraint in
the making of money wage claims which restraint is
compensated by outlays in the area of the social wage. Now
what you do in regard to child care has been seen properly
as a component of that and it can continue to be seen as
such.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, were you caught on the back
foot though by the Opposition's proposal to more than
quadriple the spending on child care?
PM: Not caught on the back foot. I mean, we'll be quite
happy as we go up to the election to compare both our
performance and our policy on child care with the
Opposition. I mean, look at what we've done in the area of
child care. It's been, I think, a remarkable achievement.
It was not the best kept secret that that's an area at which
. they were looking. I simply say this to you, that I will be
quite confident by the time we go to the election of
comparing our position, our achievements and our policy in
that area with the Opposition, both in terms of that area of
policy itself, but also, very importantly, that policy
within the general framework of what we're doing for
Australian families.
JOURNALIST: special work to be done on this area, Mr
Hawke? PM: No, I haven't asked for any special work to be done.
There may be work being done, but I haven't specifically
asked for any.
JOURNALIST: Why are your expectations tax cuts trade
off the
PM: No, we haven't I mean, it's just far too early, it
would be quite irresponsible to say that's what you'd do.
It may well be, it could well be. I'm speaking
theoretically now, but it could well be, in terms of the
analysis, of what was happening in the economy, it could be
that it was quite clear that the best thing to do would be
to increase your surplus, that that would be in the best
interests of everyone. So, to commit yourself now to a wage
tax trade off would be premature.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I'm simply saying that what, I repeat what I said
earlier, and that is that we will continuously monitor
what's happening in the economy including what's happening
to wages outcome, inflation, demand pressures and so on.
We'll obviously, as I've said, be talking to the ACTU about
wages outcomes. Now, as I've said in answer to another
question, remember Paul here, I said that, according to the
monitoring that we are doing and the analysis around the
if we regard it as appropriate to have anything
-attached to the statement about what we see as the wages
outcome" then that will be done. But it would be

-8-
irresponsible to say ' yes, it will be a further tax cut now'
when your assessment at the time might
JOURNALIST: trade off
PM: I'm simply, I mean, I think I'm expressing myself
lucidly and that is to say to you that that is a
possibility. That's one thing that could be on the table as
being said, that that's one thing that could be there. But
there are a number of issues that will be examined and in
terms of our analysis of the economic situation, we'll make
the decision and the range of decisions that we think are
most appropriate.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, if the economy does not show any
clear signs of slowing by early next year, will that create
pre conditions for the Government to stand
PM: Well, I think,...... let's say this. I think we can
probably say today, with a little bit more assurance than I
could have, say a month ago, that there are more signs now
of the economy slowing down than we would have a month
ago. I mean, I've just referred in one of my previous
answers to the latest ANZ employment index which gives a
further indication of a slowing down in the demand for
labour. You've got the Westpac Melbourne Institute survey
of leading economic indicators which are showing a further
slowdown. So, I think that we can say that there is some
more evidence of a slowing down now than there was then. I
would expect by that time for there to be further evidence.
JOURNALIST: Just on that point Mr Hawke, given your
confidence that the economy is slowing and also that the
base economic are in fact Are you more confident
now than before that we'll see interest rates falling
towards the end of this financial year?
PM: Well, while I've said, Paul, that there's somewhat more
evidence available now about a slowing down, I repeat what I
said before, that we will need to be quite confident in our
own mind that the slowing down has reached a point where we
could with confidence contemplate an easing of monetary
policy. I'm not going to pre-empt that other than to repeat
what I've said. I do think there's somewhat more evidence
of a slowing down now than there was, say, a month ago.
JOURNALIST: pharmacy dispute?
PM: I'm glad you went to that question, Paul. Let me make
this point quickly by way of giving it an historical
background because it is relevant to answering your
question. What we were confronted with was a situation
where there was an attempt to negotiate with the industry.
We were very close to getting an agreement in the earlier
part of this year. Now,. I wish we could have got there.
But we couldn't, so we had to go to the Tribunal which
* exists under the legislation established by our
predecessors. Under that decision, there was a point put to

us as a Government as to how much taxpayers' money should go
to pharmacy remuneration. We've got a responsibility to
respect that. But the PBRT did indicate that there were
other areas which were relevant to the emoluments and the
profession of the pharmacy which were outside their purview
and which was appropriate for Government to look at. Now,
we've done that. As you know we sought, in that context,
after the PBRT decision, we sought to have negotiations with
the Guild. That didn't work. So, by last week's decision
what we've done is to settle the parameters of the
resolution of this matter. You may have noticed that the
analysis that's taken place of that decision, some have said
it was too generous and, of course, some areas of the
industry have said it didn't go far enough. We believe
we've got the balance about right. What's happening now is
that the industry in its various components is
considering the decision of the Government. I simply want
to express the hope that now that that decision has been
made and the decision has been made and the framework of
that decision will be implemented. We would like to have
the position where the Guild could be associated with its
implementation and within that framework, there may be some
issues at the margin which were capable of further
discussion, but I want, I want the industry to understand
that the framework has been settled, we had to settle it. I
hope that they will now respond positively to the very many
elements in it which are manifestly of value to the
profession. I mean, it does contain $ 60 million outlay in
its three component parts, the professional allowance,....
pharmacy allowance, the restructuring allowance. Together
some $ 60 million. Secondly, it does contain the mark up
concept which has been important to them and a preparedness
on our part to go with them to the PBRT and argue for the
mark up. Thirdly, a preparedness to put a representative of
the retail pharmacy, well not correct to say representative,
but a person with experience in the retail pharmacy industry
on the Tribunal, something that they've asked for. Now
quite clearly that is a decision which addresses matters of
concern to them and it sets down the parameters. We hope
that they would now come in and be associated with the
implementation of that concept.
JOURNALIST: compensation for the airlines still
justified and when will it end?
PM: Well, let's-get the language right. The compensation
has been not to the airlines for losses, it has been to meet
the situation of enabling them to keep on their employees
for whom otherwise there would not been gainful employment.
By definition, as they are increasing their activities,
which they are very substantially, then the rationale for
that payment diminishes and is diminishing. There will be
discussions going on now in the immediate future with the
airlines, both about that area, how much longer that is
necessary and also how much longer it will be necessary to
have the supplementation of services by the RAAF and
international airlines.

JOURNALIST: How much is it costing the Government at the
moment? PM: I haven't got the figures
JOURNALIST: Roughly.
PM: No, let me simply say this. By the time that process
of payment for their otherwise redundant employees, by the
time that's finished it will be a significantly lesser
amount than the figure of $ 100 million that's been talked
about earlier in the dispute.
JOURNALIST: For the record, Prime Minister, could you
categorically again rule out a half Senate election?
PM: Yes, there's no half Senate election.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the latest polling shows that your
vote in Melbourne is God awful. why is this, and what can
you do about it?
PM: Well, I don't just fragment what we've got to do,
Michelle. I think that the essential things that we have to
do to some extent been covered in earlier comments that I
made and it's true, not only for Melbourne, true for
Australia generally. I think we have to do these things.
We have to communicate the achievements of the Government in
the fundamental areas of importance for the Australian
people. That includes not just economic policy generally,
micro economic policy reform, that's been done in the area
of employment and for families. What we've done also
internationally in terms of the future of this country.
We've got to communicate those achievements which are very,
very substantial. But, I think, increasingly, as I've said,
what we have to do not only for Melbourne but for the rest
of Australia, is to starkly and sharply draw out the
contrasts between what the conservatives are offering as an
alternative Government and what we offer. quite clear
that they are offering nothing more than a return to the
divisiveness, the confrontationism and the inequity of the
past. I don't think the people of Melbourne, or for that
matter the people of any other part of Australia, are going
to take too kindly to the proposition that billions of
dollars of capital tax gain liability are going to be
made capable of avoidance so to benefit one percent of the
population at the expense of the great masses of people of
Melbourne and elsewhere in Australia. That is typical in a
glaringly obvious example of the sort of society that the
Liberals and National Party want to create. When the people
of Melbourne and the people of Australia understand that I
have no doubt what their judgement will be.
JOURNALIST: Do you think that John Elliott is an election
issue?

-11-
PM: Good question. I think, rather than John Elliott
himself, I think John Elliott himself to some extent is an
issue. But I think that what John Elliott represents is an
election issue. John Elliott, because he is President of
the Liberal Party is the starkest example, if you like, of
what is represented by the Liberal Party policy, the
Liberal/ National Party policy. In a very dramatic and
unavoidable way, Elliott is there, on the scene and can be
shown as epitomising what their policy is about. Their
policy is about giving John Elliott and his ilk billions of
dollars of benefit of a total perversion of the tax revenue
system of this country. That it means going back to what
this country suffered from in the seven years before we came
to Government. That is, that those with the greatest
capacity to make a contribution to the revenue of the
country are going to be free from that responsibility. That
means not simply that this is a grossly inequitable society
that they want to create, but in terms of the real interests
of ordinary Australians, that means Government being denied,
literally, for a time billions of dollars of revenue which
could otherwise be used in advancing the real interests of
ordinary Australians. So, John Elliott, in a sense,
epitomises, represents that stark contrast between the two
sorts of Australia that are on offer and in respect of which
a choice has to be made at the next election.
JOURNALIST: In spite of the events of the past week are you
confident that you have or can stop the rot in the Party?
PM: Stop the rot what?
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I thought you said something after that.
JOURNALIST: Stop the rot in the Party.
PM: I don't accept that there's rot in the Party. I mean
that's an overstatement. I think I've been totally frank in
acknowledging that there've been problems. No-one can say
well look the Prime Minister has tried to dodge the fact.
I've acknowledged it but I've tried to put it in the*
perspective. I think that we would be better off if what
had happened hadn't. But there's no sense in which this is
a rot. I don't have to stop the rot. What I've got to stop
and what I will stop is a certain lack of discipline I think
that's been exhibited and getting everyone together and
united and a tight disciplined Government which has been
the hallmark of our six and a half years. There'll be no
problem in achieving that.
JOURNALIST: been criticisms, a couple of criticisms,
firstly your handling of the pilots' dispute and in the
pre-empting of various Cabinet decisions that you have lost
your capacity for concensus.

-12-
PM: No, none of the analysis, that's wrong. My
approach to the running of this Government is still very
much a consensual approach. The Ministers still have, both
within the Cabinet and in terms of approaching me, a very
great deal of freedom as they should have.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudiable)
PM: How about letting me finish the answer old boy. Thank
you very much indeed. I'm indebted to you. That they have
that freedom in the I think the one issue that's probably
been talked about where I pretty firmly put a position
before Cabinet in regard to Kakadu. Now there, that wasn't
at the beginning of the Cabinet consideration of this
matter. The matter had been before Cabinet on a number of
hours before that on different occasions. I reached the
point where I'd listen to all that had been said and thought
about it and I wanted to concentrate the discussion. I did
that by making it clear what I thought was the appropriate
outcome. And that was agreed to. But in terms of the
handling of this Government's business I think probably more
than it's been the case with any other Prime Minister that I
understand, and as far as we can look back, mine has been an
approach of making sure that every minister has a full
opportunity to make his or her input. I have no intention
of changing from that course and I haven't. You mentioned
the pilots' dispute there. We had a lengthy discussion in
the Cabinet about that and as far as I can recall there was
unanimous support for the approach that we've adopted.
JOURNALIST: Do you think that Mr Elliott played some role
in the formulation of the Liberal tax policy, specifically
on capital gains tax?
PM: I don't know what the nature of his input was.
JOURNALIST: Coming back to Senator Button Mr Hawke, you did
say there was a need for I think you said..
PM: ( inaudible)
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I think another signal.
JOURNALIST: It does suggest that there's a need for at
least an adjustment in policy at the present time.
PM: No it doesn't. C'mon. Let me read it out to you again
Milton. I think we need another signal, I agree with that.
But that's a matter in terms of what the signals will be and
when. It's a matter for my Cabinet colleagues and the Prime
Minister to determine. That's a I find that a perfectly
unobjectionable statement and I've addressed myself to it by
saying that we will be indicating to the Australian
electorate at the appropriate time in this area of economic
policy which has been talked about, what new developments

-13-
there'll be. we don't there's no need for a signal from
the Government as to whether its policy is working. The
policy is working. As I said, each arm of policy is there.
It's tight fiscal, monetary, wages. They're tight and
they're working. I've given the evidence. More
indications, just most recently of how it's working, if
there's one side of politics that really needs to be put
right on the line about what its policy means, more than a
signal but an explanation of what this different world in
inverted commas is that's involved in their policy, it's the
Opposition. It is a joke. It's no coincidence that you
have a significant economic commentator coming out today and
ridiculing it. it's rewriting the text books. Most
interestingly of course, and if you're going to really get
down to the guts of their non-policy, the fact that it's
snake oil irrelevant nonsense, it's this. That at the heart
of it it's wages policy. They say there that what's
their phrase I'll just get their phrase about wages
policy. " If you move decisively and quickly" this is on
wages " if you move decisively and quickly you can avoid
any significant effect on unemployment." Now there is no
commentator in Australia I suggest who will begin to give
creedence to what they're saying in that area. There is no
way known to man or woman that they can bring in a wages
policy which is the central linchpin of producing all their
other snake oil promises on inflation and interest rates and
foreign debt and unemployment. Wages policy is critical and
there is no way that they can make that work.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, number of indications of the
slowing up of the economy require before they can
determine there's enough confidence monetary policy?
PM: That would be an act of judgement taking account the
range of indications. And the areas that are important as
you know are in employment, housing and so on. When you're
looking at all those indicators we feel that together we've
got a firm enough basis for saying that the economy is
slowing down in a way which would be relevant to having
0 confidence about the level of imports and activity and also
the inflation. Bring those things together enable
us to form that judgement, then at that point the decision
will be made in regard to measuring of monetary polity.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, have you conceded that in the
Parliament last week you didn't perhaps put How do
you think you can improve you own personal game?
PM: I think that basically the game has been played one
thing I could probably do is try and get a little bit more
sleep.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, Mr Peacock has just told the Jewish
community leaders that he's ordered his shadow foreign
minister, Senator Hill, not to talk to PLO leaders such as
Terzi, the UN Ambassador. So how do you see that sort of
decision?

-14-
PM: It's a little bit a case of trying to close the stable
door after the horse or the Hill has bolted, isn't it. If
you wanted a massive piece of hypocrisy it's the
advertisement in the I forget which one it was but one
of the newspapers in the Jewish community which sought to
differentiate the Government and the Opposition
saying that they would not have any such conversation. But
of course they had already had those conversations. A
massive piece of hypocrisy. But not unusual in line with so
much of the hypocrisy that characterises everything they
address themselves to. Last question.
JOURNALIST: ask you to comment on your wife's entry
into journalism.
PM: I was very proud of it. a) I was proud of the fact
that she was asked to contribute and b) I thought the first
article was impressive, well-written, sensitive and relevant
to the interests I think of a large number of Australian
people. JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Certainly a very considerable newspaper and importantly
a very large readership.
JOURNALIST: Melbourne Cup?
PM: Well this rain has disrupted a lot of things. If it
hadn't rained I would've thought that Empire Rose was again
a good thing and would have double-up wins. I think all I
can say is at this stage I'll be wanting to see what the
track is like tomorrow. If the track is good then I think
Empire Rose will win again. If the track is rain affected
then it becomes much more open and I think you'd have to
take account of Coshking. An outsider with a bit of a
chance in those circumstances is Fleetwood Lad. I think
that's got a chance in those circumstances. So if I took a
prime track, Empire Rose. If it's wet, then perhaps
Coshking. Fleetwood Lad as an outsider.
ends