TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH DUNCAN KERR MP,
WREST POINT HOTEL, HOBART 24 FEBRUARY 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
KERR: Just three months ago the Prime minister and I sat
in this very room to announce the establishment of
TasPact, the joint Commonwealth and Tasmanian
Government's Task Force on Tasmanian issBue.
At the time the TasPact arrangements were announced, the
Prime Minister indicated that it would be an actionorientated
program designed to bring about substantial
results in the shortest possible time.
I just want to put on record some of my thanks to those
who have worked on this project so strenuously over the
last three months, particularly our Task Force consultant
Peter Datton and the members of the taskforce who include
two Federal ministers Peter Duncan, the minister for
Employment, Senator Michael Tate, our Tasmanian Minister,
State Ministers Pat Moore... and Kerry O'Brien from the
Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council and Paul Salmon
representing industry.
Today's announcement will mark the fourth round of major
announcements flowing from Taspact. When the Prime
Minister announced the establishment there was an
announcement of certain OLMA, office of Labour Market
Adjustment Initiatives. Since then there have been
announcements in relation to a $ 10 million package in
relation to the Salamanca Accord, and arrangement to make
sure that that process could proceed smoothly and a third
announcement in relation to the Soviet fishing fleet and
access to the port of Hobart.
So today marks the fourth round of major announcements
trwt have developed out of the TasPact process. I'm very
proud to have been associated with it and thank you very
much Mr Prime minister, Bob Hawke for being so
enthusiastic. PM: Thanks very much Duncan. Before I go to some detail
about this Tasmanian package let me just if you like
establish my credentials as to commitment to Tasmania.
Tasmania I suppose more than any other State was at the
centre of the campaign in which I was elected Prime
Minister of this country. Because you'll recall in that
campaign I had to f ight the conservatives who wanted to
dam the Franklin. So the issues of Tasmania transcended
the State, went into the whole of the mainland campaign.
So Tasmania was central. And it was a bit of a paradox
because I think the strength of the stand that I took
with my colleagues on saving the Franklin won me votes in
mainland Australia, probably cost me votes and seats in
Tasmania. You'll recall that the night I was elected Prime Minister
I said we'd be a government for all Australians and I
particularly went out of my way to say to Tasmania,
alright you've cast your vote against me, but I assure
you that this will be a government which will take
particular concern for Tasmania.
Because as President of the ACTLJ I had got to know
Tasmania's particular problems and concerns, been here
frequently, and I made a commitment then on the night of
the 5th of March ' 83, which I think every observer and
commentator has acknowledged that I had more than kept my
promise that in respect of the loss of the dam that we
would, through negotiations, enter into an agreement
which would ensure that Tasmania in employment was not
disadvantaged. I more than kept that promise.
I continually came back to Tasmania to ensure that
through consultation with a State Government which was, I
may say, not terribly cooperative and with the trade
unions and with the business community that you had a
government in Canberra which was continually taking
account of the interests of Tasmania. I have done that
consistently In the area of Commonwealth-State relations, at each
Premiers' confterence l've gone beyond what the formulas
would've required to take account in a special way of the
needs of Tasmania.
I'm here now just before an election but I remind you
that just after the election in 1987, the last election,
I came over here in August of ' 87 and there acknowledged
the importance of the tourism industry and gave a $ 30,000
grant on a dollar for dollar basis with the Tasmanian
Government to undertake special studies in regard to
tourism. Those were to be done in the united Kingdom,
Europe, Japan and North America with a view to trying to
do what we could to maximise for Tasmania its share of
growing inbound tourist traffic to Australia.
So I simply give that background to say that from 1983
until the present I as Prime Minister have had a
particular concern to try to take account of the
particular situation and difficulties of Tasmania. And
therefore what I am announcing now is to be seen as a
consistent part of the continuing concern for this State.
So what I'm announcing today is t~ Pat the Government has
accepted a series of recommendations from Duncan Kerr's
Commonwealth-State Task Force on Tasmania, this Task
Force which 1 established in November of last year.
These proposals which I am announcing today are designed
to enhance Tasmania's economic and social development.
I'm particularly glad to be doing this not only in the
presence of you Duncan but in the presence of our other
candidates over here -Gordon Lyons, Eugene you all know,
and Nick Sherry.
Now these developments which I am announcing, part of the
package, are these. A $ 5 million package to improve the
education and training opportunities available to young
Tasmanians. 1* 1l say more about that in a moment. A
grant of $ 3 million for the upgrading and the
transferring of CSIRO's forestry division to the
University of Tasmania; the establishment in Hobart of an
Antarctic Foundation to promote Hobart as the centre of
Australia's Antarctic activities and we'll be doing
that at a cost of $ 1 million; restructuring assistance of
$ 550,000 administrated by the office of Labour Market
Adjustment for skills development in Tasmania; and a
$ 75,000 feasibility study into a national hospitality
training school located in Tasmania if it arises out of
that feasibility study; and an offer to provide CSIRO and
Commonwealth Government Department assistance and
expertise to assist the Tasmanian Government in cleaning
up the Derwent River.
Further, the Commonwealth has nominated Hobart as an
access port for Soviet fishing vessels. I want to say
that during the recent visit to Australia of the Soviet
Prime Minister Mr Ryzhkov I went out of my way
deliberately to press representations on behalf of Hobart
for it to be one or the cities to be chosen by the Soviet
Union. I'm expecting decisions from the Soviet union in
the near future on this matter.
That's broadly the package. And of course the
centrepiece of today's package, ladies and gentlemen, is
the $ 5 million program for increasing the education and
training opportunities for young Tasmanians. Because
here we go right to the core, the very core of the
problems, the peculiar problems confronting Tasmania.
There's many things of which I'm proud of my seven years
in-Government, but I think there is none of which I am
more proud than that we have massively lifted the
retention rate of our kids in the education system.
Remember the facts. In the seven years before I came to
office, a miserable two per cent lift in the retention
rate from 34% to 35%. That was the grand total of the
conservative commitment and achievement to lifting the
retention rate of kids in Australian schools. Two
points, from 34 to 36. We have lifted it in our seven
years from 36 to 62. In other words from one in three of
our kids staying on in school to two in three. But
unfortunately, here in Tasmania, it hasn't shared in that
tremendous lift in the retention rate. Arnd indeed the
retention rate in Tasmania is just under 40%. Now there
you have the core of the problem. Because if your kids
aren't staying on in school developing their talents then
they are not going to be equipped to be able to do jobs
that are going to be opening up and it then becomes, in a
sense, a vicious circle of lost opportunity for the
individuals and lost employment for the state.
So we've decided that that should be the centrepiece of
how we approach these issues of concern here in Tasmania.
So with the collaboration of the state Government we will
be launching a massive drive to encourage and to make it
possible for children in the most disadvantaged schools
in Tasmania to complete high school, to give them that
flying start in life that participation in and retaining
a place in the education system gives to young kids and
which is increasingly the feature of the rest of
Australia. We must see that Tasmania starts to reflect what is
happening in the rest of Australia. And may I say that
when young Tasmanians do complete high school, much
better tertiary education and training opportunities will
be available to them. Some 1300 more university places
are being provided; the Tasmanian Science Equipment
Centre is being upgraded and relocated; and the Youth
Education Studies Centre is being established.
I go next to the question of what I intend to do in this
package to uplift forestry research capability in this
State. CSIRO forestry research capability in this State
is going to be expanded considerably by the $ 3 million
that we'll be making available for relocation and
improvement of the CSIRO's division of forestry. Due to
the cooperation that we've had from the university of
Tasmania, construction of a new facility and its
association with the University of Tasmania will
establish CSIRO's forestry research in Tasmania as a
national centre for temporate forestry research.
That of course, again, goes to an area where you have
obvious potential advantages. We in the Commonwealth
Government and in association particularly with the new
Tasmanian Government, have been concerned with the
environmental aspects of your forests. But we also in
doing that want to make sure that consistent with our
environmental concern we have as much research done as is
going to make it possible to develop, particularly in the
plantation area, the supplementation of cutting from what
had previously been an exclusively, to a large extent,
native forest. This new centre will enable that to be
done. I go to the Antarctic Foundation. I believe that the
establishment of an Antarctic Foundation in Hobart will
help to confim Hobart, as it should be, as the centre of
Australia's Antarctic activities. i'm very pleased to
say that I will be visiting the Antarctic Division this
afternoon with my good friend Jacques Cousteau.
Now my friends these various measures which I have
referred to without going into full detail into all them
were, as you know, developed by the Joint Commonwealth
and Tasmanian Government Task Force on Tasmanian
employment issues. That was chaired by my friend and
colleague Duncan Kerr. I want to thank you Duncan. I
certainly want to thank the two Federal Ministers, Peter
Duncan and Michael Tate together with their Tasmanian
counterparts. I also want to thank Tasmanian industry
and the trade unions for their cooperation. This has
been what good government and concern for regional areas
is all about. You don't sit up in Canberra and try and
pluck some idea out of the air. You get involved the
people who are committed and responsible, concerned and
knowledgeable, get them talking to the community
interests and that's how this has arisen. I want to
thank you Duncan and all who have been involved for it.
When I set this taskforce up in November it was not to be
a talkfest. I wanted it to be action-oriented, to come
up and say these are the things that are relevant to
addressing the needs of Tasmania. I thank you for coming
up with sensible proposals. Your work hasn't finished.
I want you to keep going and anything that you come up
with will be seriously considered within the obvious
constraints of fiscal responsibility. Because as
distinct from our opponents, what we do we will fund.
So I hope finally, ladies and gentlemen, it will be seen
that here is -a package which is a consistent part of my
ongoing commitment to Tasmania. Not something new but an
another part of a continuing concern and commitment.
What I want to see emerge from all this is a position
where particularly the kids of Tasmania are going to be
put in the position where they can have the same
possibility of fulfilling their legitimate aspirations
for education, training and employment in their own State
as can Australians throughout the rest of the country.
Thank you. Is there anything more you want to add to it
Duncan? KERR: I don't think so Bob. That was a very
comprehensive outline. But I'd certainly be happy to
respond to any detailed guestions perhaps at the
conciusion of this conference.
PM: Let's deal with Tasmania. Any questions about this
or Tasmania now and then we'll go to wider matters.
JOURNALIST: Given the unique alliance between Labor and
greenie dependence in Tasmania at the moment, will Labor
direct preferences to them in the Senate and the House of
Representatives instead of the Democrats?
PM: Well I am not involved in what's happening in terms
of allocation of preferences. That's a question if you
want to you can direct to those who may know better than
myself. I Just don't know the answer. I don't get
inlvolved in every State in the details of preference
allocation. But if you want to ask a question of those
who may be in a position to answer well quite happy to
do that.
JOURNALIST: It's been very difficult to get an answer.
PM: Well then that may well be because in politics
there's a lot of negotiation that goes on in politics.
And in politics it's very rarely a one way street.
Preference allocation involves what others do as well as
what you do. I wouldn't be surprised if what's going on
here is a fair bit of negotiation. That would be very
sensible if it is.
JOURNALIST: establishment of the Antarctic
Foundation mean that Tasmania will eventually get
Commonwealth funding for the Antactic Centre which was
rejected in the last
PM: That is possible. What's got to be done with this
centre is we want to really increase public understanding
of the importance of Antarctic issues. You know that
I've never at all but as far as Australia is
concerned, Hobart should be the centre of our Antarctic
activities. We have argued that if the Antarctic Treaty
partners are going to set up a Treaty Secretariat it
should be Hobart. Made it quite clear. Nowhere else.
Hobart is where it ought to be. Obviously Australia's
involvement in matters concerning the Antarctic are
increasing enormously. I have had the opportunity this
morning of having a long breakfast session with my friend
Jacques Cousteau who I met last year and with whom I've
very quickly developed a very close personal and I think
effective working relationship. It's a matter of very
considerable pleasure to me to be able to share the
information that we both have. There is absolutely no
doubt that the Australian-French initiative to ban mining
in the Antarctic and to have it created as a nature
reserve with full environmental protection is gathering
momentum around the world. Now to the extent that this
happens and with the Australian initiative it's much more
likely I think that you're going to see an increase in
action-oriented activity which will make possible the
emergence of and Antarctic Centre. But now I've not been
adopting in the past a pie in the sky approach about
this. As you'll see we've been concrete. We're now
putting $ 1 million which is going to start developing the
consciousness and obviously it will increase the
understanding of the significance of Hobart as
Australia's centre in the Antarctic. To the extent that
Australia increases its involvement in the Antarctic, as
it manifestly is, then it is more likely that what you
refer to will take place. Let me say if we make that
decision it will be a result or relevant staged processes
and if it is done it will be fully funded.
JOURNALIST: What exactly
PM: The concept is that it will in fact, as I say, have
the charter of increasing the consciousness of
Australians about the importance of Antarctic. In the
past we've tended to have a sort of romantic idea about
the Antarctic. It's down there, we had early explorers.
We haven't really I think come to understand fully the
nature of the significance or the Antarctic now. It's
been seen more and more by scientists around the world as
a unique continent. It's one which is pristine, it's
untouched by human and industrial activity. SO it is a
magnificent station on the continent for observing the
impact of environmental changes uncomplicated by local
industrial or human activity. what we want to do, and
this Foundation is calculated to do it, is to increase
the understanding in Australia in general, Tasmania in
particular, but internationally, of the importance of
these issues. It will have a distinguished independent
chairman and basically that will be a to increase
understanding of the importance of the Antarctic.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, news reports this morning that
Britain is in fact using or having a far more positive
response to Australia's initiative on the Antarctic than
had been expected. What's your understanding of their
position now and how will that possibly influence
PM: I think really the emphasis has probably been the
other way. I've heard some sort of indication that there
may be some change within the United Kingdom. But it's
certainly been within the United States where we are
getting grounds for considerable enthusiasm as to the
outcome. I would say that it is very unlikely that the
United States will ratify the convention, the wellington
Convention. Very unlikely they'll ratify it.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Why do I say that? I say it because there is first
of all in the United States, as there is elsewhere in the
world now, a very positive and growing response to the
Australian-French initiative. Public opinion, as I
predicted at the time when people, the sceptics were
saying, oh what can you do. You wait and see. what is
happening is that country after country is responding to
public opinion. They are increasingly seeing a public
view which said that it would be an obscenity to allow
mining in the Antarctic. Now most specifically recently
on the 7th of February in the United States there was a
televised debate between who is the administration
person in the United states who's invested many years of
his life in the development of the Wellington convention,
the Minerals convention. And in the televised debate
between Senator Gore and Senator Gore recommited
himself to support for the Australian position. Now..
been legislative processes in the United states Congress
are moving in a way where all our intelligence suggests
that it is unlikely that the United States will ratify.
Now I think that's had its influence within the United
Kingdom. That's where there's really been a more public
development of an anti-convention position. And of
course I've just had the Prime Minister of the Soviet
Union here and he more than confirmed the recent
statement of President Gorbachev. So if you look at
what's happening, you've got, starting of f, Australia and
France. We started it. Then we got some of the the
Italians and the Dutch, some of the Scandinavians, the
Germans making much more responsive noises, now the
Soviet Union. I believe the Soviet Union and the Eastern
bloc will be supportive. We've got the position now of
the United States I think moving more to position nonratification.
There are some signs in South America that
Chile will be supportive and perhaps others. So I think
we're entitled to have a much much more optimistic view.
I think by the time we have the special meeting later
this year, which has been agreed in Paris last year to be
held to consider the Australian-French position, I think
we're going to that with a very very sound position.
This is another example of the way in which the
Australian Government has taken an international lead on
matters on environmental concern. Is there any other
Tasmanian, just quickly and then we'll
JOURNALIST: good raport with the Americans. Do you
think there's a case for them to be asked to move their
scientific base activities from Christchurch New Zealand
to Hobart?
PM: Well, I mean I don't want to declare war on New
Zealand.
JOURNALIST: I hope not.
PM: It would create a quaint situation for you wouldn't
it. We wouldn't to that. No, I think that would be
a pretty gross act of unfriendliness if I were to do
that. Let me say that I think you probably know that at
the time when the difficulties between the United States
and New Zealand were at their height on the question of
the visit of United states ships there were some
pressures within the United States and elsewhere to say
oh well to New Zealand and we'll shift to Australia. It
_ didn't seem to us that that was a very sensible thing to
do. Nor do I think Tasmanians would've wanted that to be
done. So I wouldn't think the United States would be
doirW that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, at his news conference this
morning can I go onto that?'
PM: I'll just ask the locals first.
JOURNALIST: Why are you focusing on Hobart during
PM: That's right. I'm going to be not just in the seat
that we hold, Denison, but I will be going into Lyons for
instance where we have Bob here. That, if I'm right the
seat of Lyons Bob covers how much? What proportion of
Tass is?
BOB: Two thirds of Tasmania.
PM* Two thirds of Tasmania. That's the seat that Bob
Gordon's our candidate for. So I'm going into part of
that. I will be returning. This is not my only visit.
I would like to make a more extensive tour but as in all
the other States I will not be going into every part of
every State. But I will be coming back here again before
the election.
KERR: Just to wrap up the Tasmanian material, if I could
close this section by just putting on record formally my
thanks to the Prime Minister. He and his office have
been an enthusiastic background to all the work we did on
TasPact, initiating the program, seeing it through and
steering it through. There are many detailed elements
that are included in your detailed papers, including for
example establishing an Asia-Pacific regional centre for
sea transportation, elements which are going to be of
vital importance to this State into the future. They're
soundly based, they're costed, they've been established
through a very sound consultative process and Bob I'm
just absolutely delighted that we do have the this
opportunity to place on record our thanks to you.
PM: Thank-you. Hay I say, just finally on this, on the
coatings. I hear with as we will be during this
campaign and what you won't see from the other mob, the
March 1.990 ERC scoresheet Labor's Fiscal Discipline.
What you have set out here is on the top line the savings
identified by the Treasurer in Wednesday's economic
statement. They are set out not just for the first year
but for the three years. There they are, the savings,
$ 347.7 million, $ 547.8 million in the second year, $ 602.9
million in the third year. Then the outlays announced in
his statement, the Treasurer set out what the cost would
be of our labour market ref rom program. Now today you
have the second line, the Tasmanian package, set out,
funded for each year. Which gives you then remainder of
savings and that leaves outlays to be announced and the
bottom line for the three years. In other words my
friends you will be getting through this campaign, from
this side of the campaign, the clear indications of cost
of promises and how they are funded. You will not be
seeing that from the other side. They are going to be
burdened right through this campaign with a $ 6 billion
credibility gap, where's the money coming from.
JOURNALIST: At his news conference in Melbourne this
morning Prime Minister, Andrew Peacock implied as
strongly as he could that the Government was deliberately
thwarting his ability to get a good look at the documents
relevant to the Elliott case.
PH: I'll answer that question now and then as far as I'm
concerned it's the end of the matter. Mr Peacock is
deliberately attempting to misrepresent this situation.
He is expecting that I and the Attorney-General would
give him a greater access to NCA documents and material
than the Attorney-General himself has. That is on its
face an absurdity. What was promised is what will be
delivered, and that is, in the face of the slur that was
made by Mr Peacock and Mr Elliott on the integrity of my
Attorney-General, Mr Peacock can see what the Attorney-
General saw which was the basis upon which the request,
from the MCA, that there should be a reference. Now Mr
Peacock can see what the Attorney-General may have seen.
It would be manifestly absurd. No-one would suggest that
he should see more than the Attorney-General. That, as
far as I'm concerned is clear and it is all that I'm
going to say on it. Because I have only gone to this
issue because they questioned the integrity of my
Attorney-General. It is not appropriate, it would be
against all practice for us to be getting into
discussions about the operations of the NCA. I am not
going to get into it any more.
JOURNALIST: Has Mr Elliott effectively muzzled both you
and Mr Keating with his defamation action and
difficult to target him for the rest of the campaign?
PM: Well let me say this Bob. I wasn't going to be
about targeting Hr Elliott as such. I mean, as I've said
before, Mr Elliott has said himself, and I can give you
the transcript reference it you like. Hr Elliott has
said that he has had an input into the formulation of the
Liberal's economic policies. That's no surprise that he
has. Now, all I have said before is that in reference to
Mr Elliott in this campaign, not be as far as I'm
concerned a personal attack on him. But he, if you like,
represents, typifies the thrust of privilege, the thrust
to privilege of the Opposition's economic policies.
Because the simple fact is that under my Government we
have put into the public coffers hundreds of millions of
dollars which over the years will come to billions of
dollars through a capital gains tax. Those billions of
dollars will be used, as the proceeds already are being
used-for the education of our kids for instance. what
the Liberal's economic policy is about is to transfer
those billions of dollars from our kids' education into
the pockets of people like Mr Elliott. Now that's the
sense in which Mr Elliott comes into it. But as far as
he's concerned personally, I have no interest in him.
JOURNALIST; Mr Hawke, are you concerned that the Elliott
question appears to have dominated this first week of
your campaign?
PH: I don't think it's dominated this first week at all.
It certainly, as I move around and hearing what people
are saying, it hasn't dominated. Let's get the picture
of what I think is the issue which in real terms has
emerged with dominance from this week. what have you had
from Mr Peacock? You've had from Mr Peacock a parroting,
but not a consistent parroting, but you've had a
parroting from Mr Peacock that they'll bring down
interest rates. interest rates will come down under a
coalition government. Now of course he hasn't been
consistent, as I say. Early on it was going to be, from
day one and massive, then it was going to be 15t, then
the next day I didn't say that. I mean very
inconsistent. But they would bring interest rates down.
Now, what has also come through this week consistently is
that they refused to give an outcome figure for wages and
inflation. He said, to get interest rates down you've
got to bring inflation down. But he will not give the
Australian people an outcome figure for wages. If you
cannot give an outcome figure for wages and then
inflation you cannot make this promise about bringing
interest rates down. It's like saying the cheque's in
the mail. That's how good it is. The simple fact is
they have no policies. They have no policies about
bringing down inflation because they have no wages
policy. Therefore what has emerged at the end of this
week is that it is a nonsense. And as the campaign goes
on it will be seen as a nonsense. You cannot say I'll
bring down interest rates if you're not prepared to say
to the Australian people this is what I expect the wages
outcome to be. You'll remember, this is nothing new for
Mr Peacock. -When he was confronted by all you
journalists at the Gallery, the Press Gallery and asked
the critical question it's critical not just about
wages, it's critical about inflation, it's critical about
whether you can bring down interest rates that is, what
will the wages outcome be? He stood up, shrugged his
shoulders and said ' who's to know'. Now if you don't
know what the wages outcome is going to be you cannot,
with credibility, say to the Australian people I'll bring
down interest rates. The truth is that he can't give a
wages outcome because, because he knows there will be a
wages explosion under his policies, as there was before
at the beginning of the ' 80a when they had the same
policies. And if there's a wages explosion then interest
rates don't come down. They go up and the economy
collapses. That's what's come out of week one.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, some of the commentators have
given the coalition, not withstanding all that, the
points for the first week. Is that your assessment
PM: It certainly is not. Now, look. I just get back to
the point of what are you really, what judgement are you
making about the intelligence of the Australian
electorate? I see that it comes up again and again
during this week, as they talk about the week, the
microphone incident in Sydney, where I had a lot of fun,
I thought, with the audience. They were certainly
laughing with me. But the microphone incident in Sydney
in the eyes of the profound political analysists, is the
big thing of week one. Great deal. Now I was there. I
laughed with and at the audience and with the media. But
this in the eyes or the analysts is the profound thing
about week one. Now I just happen to think, as I have
always and you know from my discussions with you of
people in the media I think the Australian people are
more serious than all this. Do you really think that Bob
Havke's observations about a sea of microphones is more
important than what I've just talked about? That you
have Andrew Peacock wandering around Australia uttering
platitudes, saying I'll bring down interest rates. Not
saying it consistently, contradicting himself one day
from the other as to what he's really said, but
nevertheless saying he's going to bring down interest
rates, but refusing, refusing consistently during this
week, and his economic spokesman as well, refusing to
give a wages outcome. The people of Australia know that
if a party seeking to become government cannot give a
wages outcome, and can't give it because they know
there's going to be a wages explosion under their policy,
they know that interest rates must go up, that the
economy explodes. Now I just happen to believe in my
analysis of the Australian people that they regard those
things as more important than the fact that Bob Hawke
might have said something about a sea of microphones in
the Opera House on Monday of this week.
JOURNALIST; Mr Hawke, much about perceptions as you
go in the second week into the debate where people are
going to form perceptions of your performance in that
debate PM: Sure.
JOURNALIST: How are you going to knock of f the
perception that you've had a bad first week and get the
campaign on the rails?
PM: I don't think it's off the rails. I don't accept
it.
JOURNALIST: What's the outcome of the debate going to be
PM; I don't know. We haven't had the debate yet. But I
feel fairly confident about it. I think the debate will
enhance existing perceptions. As I've said a couple of
times before when I was asked about this, there's an
interesting symmetry about the careers of Peacock and
Hawke. In time that is, not in many other respects. But
we've both been in public life for 30 years and I think
people, y'know, have made their judgements about Hawke
and Peacock in terms of seeing then around for 30 years.
While, as I say, Itm confident about tomorrow night, I
think that that will essentially enhance the perceptions
I have out of 30 years.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawks are you concerned though that the
television pictures that are coming out every night have
Mr Peacock with mystery blondes, beautiful daughters,
happy pictures
PM: I'd be more concerned if they had me with mystery
blondes. So would Hazel. Look at her over there.
JOURNALIST: whereas the pictures of you are showing
constantly the protests from the pilots.
PM: Oh, constantly the protests from the pilots. Now
I'm glad you bring that up. Look, let's get this quite
clear. The pilots are saying very specifically that they
want a vote for Andrew Peacock. The pilots out there
constantly abusing me I accept, as I've said, as part
of the democratic process. You haven't heard me complain
once and you won't hear me complaining once. The only
thing we have done I might say in regard to it is the
police, and they informed me about it, they have got in
touch with the Pilots Federation and said look, it's not
a very sensible idea to have your kids there, your little
kids there because that could, I mean I just think that's
very silly. I hope that they do to because it would be
terrible if something happened to the kids in these sorts
of situations. 1 hope they won't have them there. But
if they want to protest, well and good. But what the
Australian people are seeing is a very simple thing.
They are seering the pilots, understanding that Mr Peacock
and the conservatives are their friends. why? Because
last year the pilots declared war on the existing system.
They said we want not a system where there is centralised
control so that you can have predictable outcomes. We
want it just to be straight-out bargaining in which we
can go against our employers and get 30%. I've said no
that's not on, please stay in the system. Mr Peacock and
the opposition gave me carte blanche. Mr Peacock
actually said what Australians need is for governments to
get out of these disputes and out of pay fixing as such.
So the pilots naturally want Mr Peacock to win because
the Peacock policy is the pilot policy. That is, let the
strong exercise their strength in a straightout conflict
with their employer. They know that that's what happened
in-the early ' 80s when the same policy was followed. Now
I wasn't prepared to allow that to happen because I know,
not in theoretical terms, but I know what it did to
Australia at the beginning of this last decade. It
brought the worst recession in 50 years because we had a
wages explosion. Now the pilots wanted to do that again.
They recognised that Mr Peacock would've allowed them to
do it. Why shouldn't they be out there making as much
noise as they can in favour of Mir Peacock? Now that's
what it's about. It's part of the choice. I mean this
election is about choices and I'm glad that in this
democratic way that. fft happening I don't find it
pleasant, I must say I don't find it pleasant at all..
I'm happy that they are dramatising a fundamental
difference and a fundamental choice that the Australian
people have to make. It's this. Do you want what the
pilots and Peacock want? That is, open slather where the
strong can use their strength to extract massive wage
increases which will inevitably destroy the economy or do
you want the Hawke position under which instead of having
that conflict situation we've had a centrally-controlled
wage system negotiated and which has given a rate of
employment growth five times faster than under our
predecessors. These are the choices that people have to
make in this election for the future. Do you want the
Peacock pilots wages policy or don't you? So to the
extent that they are highlighting that then in a sense
that's helpful. Although as I say personally I don't
find it very pleasant.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, could I ask you a local question
please? PH: Sure.
JOURNALIST: When the Liberal launch their this
week, they said that the Federal Government spends more
on PM: They said what? Sorry, could you speak up.
JOURNALIST: They said that you've spent more money on
New Caledonia and Vanuatu than you did in Tasmania
PM: Well that of course is not true. if you look at the
package of money that we've spent in Tasmania over the
period since I've been office, that's a nonsense. But we
don't expect the truth from the Liberals. That's just
another example of their untruths.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, can we expect your child care
initiatives this week?
PM: You'll get some initiatives in regard to child care
not before long in the campaign.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke do you think the debate is a
turning point for either side one side or the other
9044
PHI No. No.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, now that you've had a chance to
become aware of the debts of the Victorian State Bank, do
you think it's right that Hr Jolly has refused to accept
any responsibility for those debts?
PH: well the position is, as Mr Jolly has put it, that
there is no ministerial involvement in the commercial
decision-making processes of the Bank. That's the