TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, EASTERN SUBURBS LEAGUES
CLUB, BONDI JUNCTION 20 FEBRUARY 1990
E EQ PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, why is the NCA investigating Mr
Elliott? PM: Let me makea this position very clear, that it has
been the practice consisten. ly, dnd I've spoken to the
Attorney-General about this and I'm reinforced by what he
has to say to me, that Governments neither confirm nor
deny whether particular matters have been referred to the
NCA. that has been the consistent practice. I'm neither
confirming nor denying. But having said that, let me say
this and make it quite clear so that there can be no
grounds for any imputation or snide. suggestion by anyone
in this country, in the media or outside It, that in all
cases where the NCA has references, it's on the basis of
a request by the NCA following preliminary investigations
of referral information from other Government agencies.
They make the request. The NCA makes the request. In
those circumstances, if it comes to the Commonwealth
Attorney-General, then there is a consultation by the
Commonwealth Attorney-Genieral with the relevant Ministers
in each State. That is the practice that has been
followed, as I'm informed, in any case where there has
been a referral. Now let me make it also clear that the
NCA is, as you all know, not a political body. It is the
premier investigative body in this country. It would
only seek references if it has, in any cases, it would
only seek references from the Commonwealth or the State
Ministers when it, the NCA, was satisfied that it had
evidence requiring such a reference. So there's the
position. I'm not confirming nor denying because that is
the practice which has been consistently followed. I'm
neither confirming nor denying. I'm simply saying that
in respect of all cases where there has been references,
it's on the basis of a request from the NCA. Where it
has material before it which it believes requires a
reference, and when it comes to the Commonwealth
Attorney-General, he consults with the States. Obviously
it would be improper in terms of all past practice for me
to say anything more than that and I don't intend to.
JOURNALIST: The Liberal Party has labelled this a
political smear. Do you have any response to
I
PM: Well just let's be clear about that. Let's assume,
let's assume and for the sake of answering your
question, I'm only making the assumption let's assume
that a reference came last year, a request for a
reference came last year to the Attorney-General from the
NCA according to the normal processes where the NCA had,
for the Bake of assumption, that it had material and it
requested the Attorney-General for reference. Then the
logic of what's being said, not by you, but in putting
the question, the logic of it is that if a request had
come in this particular case, because a person concerned
was involved with an opposition party and there may be an
election coming up some time within the next six months,
you don't allow the normal processes to follow. That
would be the assumption if that's what the situation had
been. Now you only have to put it that way to see that
that's an absurdity.
JOURNALIST: Changing the subject Mr Hawke, is the Labor
Party going to actually target Mr Elliott in terms of his
conflict of interest between dealings
PM: No, I haven't got any particular intention at all of
targetting Mr Elliott. What I have said in regard to Mr
Elliott in the past has been measured, as you know, and I
can produce if you like, and I probably will at some
stage during the campaign, acknowledgements by Mr Elliott
that he has been involved with Mr Peacock, when Mr
Peacock was Shadow Treasurer, in discussions about
economic policy. And hie's entitled to. I'm not saying
I mean he's the President of their party and he
acknowledges quite openly that he has been. I'm simply
going to be pointing out during this campaign, amongst
other things, that in regard to the capital gains tax,
which is the proposal to abolish that on the part of the
Liberals, is very simple. It is one which will mean that
the very rich and privileged in this country are going
collectively to have billions of dollars put into their
pockets and taken out of the public revenue which would
be available for expenditure by any Commonwealth
Government on education, roads and a whole range of
things for the benefit of ordinary Australians. Those
billions of dollars are going to be taken out of the
public revenue and put into the pockets of the rich and
privileged. Mr Elliott would be one of the beneficiaries
not the only one. He'd be one of the beneficiaries of
that. And he has said himself that he has been involved
with the Shadow Treasurer in the development of economic
policy. Now I don't think that that's something that the
Australian people would like. I think it's appalling.
But that has got nothing to do with any suggestions that
have emerged in the last 24 hours. And indeed, may I
say, I've been making that point going back over several
months. JOURNALIST: Do these reports help the Government in any
way?
PM: Who am I to assess? I don't know. But I'm in the
position, as is the Attorney-General, that according to
practice we simply can neither confirm nor deny. 1 would
think there are very obvious reasons for that. But I
would make this point in addition. Lionel Bowen is a man
who is not standing at this election. He is a man who I
would think of whom nothing has ever been said, nothing,
by either side of politics which goes to questioning his
integrity. I don't think anyone in the media would be
able to point, and I would challenge anyone on the
Opposition, in the Liberal or the National Parties, to
point to any time in the long and distinguished career of
Lionel Bowen in the State and Federal Parliament, and in
his period as Attorney-General, where there has ever been
any suggestion about the integrity of Lionel Bowen.
Indeed,. I'll auk you to recall that in the Parliament, in
the farewells, they spoke glowingly of Lionel Bowen.
There have been references in the last few months when it
was known that he was going. No-one has ever questioned,
nor could ever question the integrity of Lionel Bowen.
JOURNALIST: Is the NSW State Bank in trouble?
PM: I don't know. That refers to an observation I made.
I simply was saying, people asked me about the State
Bank. I thought the situation was that there could be
not questioning the integrity or the substance of the
bank, but the banking system generally, including the
State Blanks have been in a situation, as you know. I
mean they've announced it, the private banks have
announced that they have difficulties where they have
extended credit in situations where with hindsight they
probably wished they hadn't done so. But I'm not in any
way suggesting that the State Bank of NSW is in problems,
in difficulties, nor have I said that at any point.
JOURNALIST: You mentioned by name.
PM: I di~ d. I'm simply to say that there was some
suggestion that, an implication that the State Bank in
Victoria may uniquely be in a situation of some bad
debts. Now I was simply making the point that I don't
believe that the State Blank of Victoria is uniquely in
that position. And indeed the published results of
private banks would confirm that.
JOURNALIST: On the wages accord, withbut taking away
from Treasurer Keating's limelight
PM: Yes, I'm not going to do that.
JOURNALIST: Would you expect those that you'll be
targetting for benefits to feel grateful for what's being
given or would you expect a cynical reaction?
PM: No, I wouldn't expect a cynical reaction. I mean,
what you've always got to do when you're asking questions
like this is to remember that we've been in office for
seven years. I think this will be about the 14th
economic statement that my friend and colleague, Paul
Keating, will be delivering. So you are able to test
your question as to the likely reactions against what's
happened before. I think you will find that where Paul
Keating, on behalf of the Government, has brought these
statements down, they have been welcomed. But
importantly not only by those who are the direct and the
immediate beneficiaries of what we will be announcing
today but in the sense, even more importantly than that,
there will be the welcome by the community as a whole
that what you're getting is a statement from a Treasurer
on behalf of a Government which is fully funding, not
just for one year but over a three year period, fully
funding any additional spending proposals that we'll be
making. And that will be consistent with what we've done
in the past. In other words, the community is going to
feel satisfaction that these are not wild, unspecified,
unfunded promises. These ure fully funded commitments.
So the attitude will not only, I think, be one of
gratitude on the part of people who will be specific
beneficiaries, but that will give, in my judgement, a
great deal of satisfaction to the community who I think,
have had a gutful of politicians over the years who've
come along and made wild, extravagent, unfunded promises.
I mean, those days are gone. One of the products of this
period of Government has surely been that we do have a
community which is now more economically sophisticated.
It will not buy this wild attempt to buy their votes and
support with unfunded promises. I insan, we say that in
1987 and we have a situation now confirmed by the
Opposition today in regard to the two tier tax system
that they're promising, that they have got a great gaping
hole of $ 6B. $ 6B and a contrast not be able to be
more stark. They are insulting the intelligence of the
Australian voter, saying that they think the Australian
voters will buy the $ 6B hole, credibility gap against the
Government, which through my friend and colleague, Paul
Keating, today will be announcing, fully funded spending
proposals. JOURNALIST; Is there any merit in the call by Mr Bob
Carr for a summit of yourself and State Premiers on the
truck blockade?
PM: Well it doesn't seem to be immediately necessary. I
see that those involved in the blockade have indicated
that their concern is with NSW and not with the Federal
Government, which is appropriate. Now I'm not in any
sense ther fore saying we haven' t got an interest, we
have. But I want to say to Nick Greiner, and Nick I'm
saying this in a non-aggravating and a non-partisan
point scoring sense. I really want to refer to the facts
and that is that there is a proposal on the table, the
blackspots proposal which has got $ 120M attached to it.
If you will agree with the other States well then that
will introduce a uniformity of standards which naturally
enough those operating out there in the trucks, it's a
hell of a job, they as much as those of us who are
looking at it Just rationally and intellectually,
particularly those that are driving the trucks, they want
a uniform standard. Now I'm saying to Nick Greinier that
it can be done and in a way which will involve outlays of
$ 120M by us. If there are some further matters that are
concerning the truckies that go to issues of log books
for instance, which are not part of the $ 120M black spots
program but are matters of concern to them, I would be
quite prepared and happy if there are additional matters
that are not covered by our particular proposals, to have
a meeting of the Commonwealth arid States to look at those
matters to try and get some national uniformity.
JOURNALIST: Mr Carr has suggested that the State
Government should invoke Section 45D of the Secondary
Boycotts Legislation. Do you support that call?
PM; Well I would hope that you can get it resolved
before you go into that position because as I say, while
I don't condone and I think the truckies know that and
they'll accept my observation on that I don't condone
their tactics. I and I think the overwhelming majority
of Australians understand their concern about standards
and it's a tough job they've got, it really is a tough
job. They are entitled to our understanding but not
support for their tactics. Now I would hope that you
could get the response from NSW to what I've said and on
that basis arid particularly if the federal union can get
an understanding with the others, I would hope that you
can get this matter resolved without resort to that
measure. JOURNALIST: How important to your re-election chances is
today's statement by Mr Keating?
PM: It's impossible to be precise about that. I mean,
the electors5 of Australia will have a range of issues in
their mind. It will be important. There will be
leadership, there will be Medicare, there will be a whole
range of issues. But I think pretty centrally important
will be the question of responsible economic management.
And I think as a result of what Paul will have to say
that you will have projected on to the political face of
Australia now and these next five weeks in which people
have to make up their mind, the starkest possible
alternative. Now obviously I must leave all the details
to Paul but I can say this without jumping his gun in any
way, that the outcome& from his statement will be such
that Australians, wage and salary earners, employers, all
levels of Government, all organisations and welfare
organisations, are a~ ll going to be able to say, well
there for the next 12 to 16 months, there is the economic
environment within which we're operating. There's the
wages outcome, there's the inflation outcome, and quite
clearly it will be within the context of continued
economic growth. They will know that anything that we're
promising will be paid for. Now against that, starkly
there will be the position of an opposition which let's
go to the elements. We're talking about interest rates
being central and crucial. OK, I'll buy that. Now Mr
Peacock has said on the AM program yesterday morning that
his capacity to do anything about interest rates depends
on what happens in the other two areas, fiscal policy and
wages policy. Now at the end of the Keating statement Mr
Peacock will be shot down in flames because you will have
the contrast in fiscal policy, fully funded promises from
the Hawks Government, fully funded. Against that you
will have the $ 6B hole of Mr Peacock. And on wages, a
precise outcome for the next 12 to 18 months on the part
of the Government. Against that, a wages policy which is
regarded by half his own people as a joke and by the
whole community. Why do you think it is that Yesterday
the large business organisations of this country
indicated they didn't want a bar of a Peacock Government.
In large measure it was because they know they have all
the facilities to analyse this thing and they know better
than anyone that in the wages area they would be facing a
wages explosion and a collapse of the economy. if you
have a fiscal blowout and a wages collapse, interest
rates are through the roof to recess the economy. So
it's a long answer to your question but deliberately so.
I can't say precisely how important it will be but
knowing that those things are involved in Paul Keating's
statement on behalf of the Government, it is going, I
think, very clearly in the minds of the Australian
electorate, highlight the difference between responsible
economic management, from a united team who can speak
with one voice and with authority against $ 65 hole from a
group of people who are consistently and continuously
contradicting one another.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawks, do you think Mr Kelty has undue
influence on the Government, given that he is now
formulating 8 large part of your re-election package?
PM: He's not formulating our election package. We have
Snot been secretive about the relationship between the
Governemnt and the trade union movement. It's been there
for seven years. Now the Australian people can make
their judgement and they can take their choice. Before
1983 you had a situation of the conservatives adopting,
as they always have, I mean, it wasn't just a feature of
the last couple of years, they've always adopted a
confrontationist attitude to the trade union movement and
that produced the worst recession in 50 years.
Burgeoning unemployment, burgeoning inflation and may I
say interest rates higher than we ever have reached. Now
against that we said that it doesn't make sense. The
trade union movement is not an ogre. They represent
ordinary Australians, like people that are watching this
and listening to what I'm saying. They are organisations
of ordinary working men and women and we've taken the
view that it makes sense to talk with them and say, look
can we get a way in this country, can we got a way, a
method of talking about your remuneration, which is not
' S. 7
simply to be determined by the biggest money wage
increases that you can possibly get? can we look at
restraint in your money wage claims and also look at
remunerating you and rewarding you by improvements by way
of tax cuts and by way of increases in the social wage
generally,? And Mr Kelty, on behalf of the trade union
movement, has respondend. And in the result, instead of
having the worst recession in 50 years from
confrontation, we've had a rate of employment growth five
times faster than under the conservatives, twice as fast
as the rest of the world, two out of three of our kids
staying in school instead of one out of three, Medicare
instead of two million of our fellow Australians not
being covered. All these have come because the trade
union movement, as the business community recognised, has
excercised a massive restraint in their wages claim.
We've had a 13% reduction in real wage unit labour costs
because of the rest. raint that the trade union movement,
via Mr Kelty, has exercised. So my answer to your
question is I don't think that people are going to say
that that is a bad thing. We have co-operated, talked
with the trade unions as we've talked with business and
the results have been spectacularly better than that
awfully recessed economy that we inherited in ' 83.
JOURNALIST: slightly different accord this time
round in the election campaign
PM: Oh, so the argument therefore is that we throw away
the proper conduct of economic management because there's
an election campaign. I mean, that is a ridiculous
situation. we're reaching the point where you have to
negotiate the next wages agreement and the Australian
electorate are entitled to know as they go to the
election as to whether this Government is capable again
of doing what it's done for seven years, of getting the
restraint in money wage claims. If that can be done in
the context of other considerations which will produce
predictable wage outcomes and predictable inflation
outcomes. They are entitled to know that and to be able
to make a comparison between us and the Opposition. And
we have given them that opportunity and you will see that
spectacularly made clear at the end of Mr Keating's
statement.