PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, SHERATON HOTEL, BRISBANE,
26 FEBRUARY 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: I'm sorry to keep you waiting. I just want to make
a few comments on the national scene and then one about
the Queensland scene, if I may, before I make myself
available to you for questions.
The most significant single thing I think that came out
of last night's debate was the stark revelation of the
Opposition Leader's recipe for economic disaster in this
country. He talked at one and the same time about the fiscal
discipline, then went about spending money like a drunken
sailor. He was asked about the soil degradation program
and he said, well I don't know what the figures are, look
them up in the forward estimates and double them. We've
done that and we find that the Leader of the Opposition
has now committed himself to at least another $ 158
million expenditure. by the fact that under the
program, the forward estimates, the figures for the first
three years, minimum figures in the first three years of
that's 26, 26, 27 which gives you 79. So there's $ 79
million in addition. But we find in this morning's paper
that Senator Puplick has said that they're going to
complete this program not in ten years, but in five
years. So we've doubled the $ 79 and get $ 158 million.
Now here's this man of fiscal rectitude who's already got
a $ 6 billion credibility gap, and last night I just find
another $ 158 million into the red. Now let me put it
quite simply. Once Mr Peacock is bereft of his prepared
cliches as to what they will do, he is hopeless on how
they will achieve their stated objectives.
The central issues in bringing about a reduction in
interest rates in this country, a reduction in inflation,
are what do you do about wages and what is your fiscal
policy. Now last night I tested Mr Peacock again on wages outcome
and we had a replay of the ' who's to know' Canberra reply
because he had no answer on the central question, what is
the wages outcome likely to be.
I said last night, and I repeat it here, that in each of
our years in office, our predictions about wages outcome
have been accurate. On average, the predictions as to
wages outcome have been about .5 of a per cent above the
actual outcome. So we can predict with accuracy and with
confidence the wages outcome.
Mr Peacock is faced now with a situation where again he
cannot deny that there must be a wages explosion under
his policy because again he concedes the position that in
the fixation of wages the Government should bail out of
that position and leave it to the strength of parties.
That means a wages explosion against our wages
predictability. So on the wages front he can do nothing to control
interest rates. It must be a recipe for higher interest
rates. And add it to fiscal discipline where he's
talking about reigning in Government expenditures, in
fact, as I say, he's now added to the $ 6 billion
credibility gap by at least another $ 158 million. So he
cannot answer how he will achieve what he says he will
do. In fact, when questioned and when pushed, it's quite
clear that it would bring inevitably an increase in
interest rates under the policies of Mr Peacock.
So much for the national implications of last night. But
may I say, coming to Queensland it's fascinating to see
the confirmation of the last thing I said last night in
the debate. Here is an Opposition coalition deeply
divided I said, not able to govern themselves, how can
they govern the country. And we find now, here in
Queensland, what we expected the Liberals and the
National Party at one another's throat. Because what we
have, the State Director of the Liberal Party in
Queensland saying yesterday about Senator Stone. Senator
Stone, the National Party candidate for the seat of
0 Fairfax, the Liberal Party saying of Senator Stone, I
quote ' Senator Stone is not the sort of person people
would want to vote for'.
Now here you have the Liberal Party saying about the
Shadow Minister for Finance that he's not the sort of
person that people would want to vote for. I repeat, if
these people are so torn by internal hatreds and
divisions, saying of a leading candidate in the National
Party that he's not the sort of person that people would
vote for, how can the people of Queensland or the people
of Australia have any confidence in them at all? OK.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, how do you rate your performance
last night? Win, lose, win by points or what?
PM: Well, let me say this. I was asked when I came out
of the, of the studio last night by the assembled
journalists how I felt. I said I felt comfortable with
my performance. I understand that in the poll taken of
those same journalists they had me a clear winner.
That's their judgement. I'm more than happy with the
reaction that appeared in the Press around Australia
today, but I don't go about claiming victory. I merely
say, as I said last night, I was comfortable with my
performance. I think I went to the issues and I'll leave
it at that.
JOURNALIST: Are you relieved that it's over?
PM: Well, you may have noticed that I was able to handle
it reasonably comfortably. I didn't have any notes and
piles of cue cards and all that sort of thing. As I said
last night and I think it's worth saying. I mean, if you
are Prime Minister of this country or you purport to be a
Prime Minister, a potential Prime Minister of this
country, it seems to me if you can't handle an hour of
questioning and debate about the economy, social policy,
the environment and be prepared for any sort of questions
S that may come, I mean, it's not much of a commentary upon
you. I felt able from my experience and the work that I
continuously do to keep abreast of things, I felt able to
handle these things. It would be foolish to deny, and I
don't, that there isn't a certain amount of tension in
these things, of course there is. But basically I felt
fairly relaxed about it.
JOURNALIST: Is there any chance of a rematch after the
policy launch?
PM: Look, we've had 90 years of federation in this
country, there's been two debates agreed to by a Prime
Minister in that period I've agreed to both of them
and you would have thought that if Mr Peacock felt that
he'd won last night, he'd put that in his pocket and say,
well let's get on feeling that he didn't and wants
another go. But I think one's enough probably.
0 JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you think that these things
should become a fixed feature of future election
campaigns? PM: Well, I'm not going to be Prime Minister for ever
and therefore I don't want to I certainly trust I'll be
for the next term and perhaps some time after that but
this is a matter really for people at the time to
determine. And I was in a position in 1984 where in the
1983 campaign I had challenged Mr Fraser and he wouldn't
debate me in 1983. So I was fair game for a challenge in
1984 and I thought well on this occasion if I don't
agree to it, you're going to have Mr Peacock wandering
around the country saying ' he won't debate'. let's
get that out of the way. So we've got that out of the
way. Now I'm very relaxed about last night. Let's get
on with the campaign.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: Has it boosted your confidence?
PM: Well, as I said in answer to the previous questions,
I feel fairly comfortable about last night. I'm
certainly fairly comfortable about what appears to be the
reactions. I'm not arrogant about it, I'm comfortable
and I'm looking forward to the rest of the campaign.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you were noticeably restrained,
particularly at the beginning of the debate, was this a
deliberate tactic or was it a case of nerves?
PM: No, I wasn't nervous. As I said before, it would be
silly to say that there's not some sort of tension in
these things. Of course there is if you're going to be
in a national debate. I mean, I'm human, there's some
tension. But I tend not to be a nervous type. I wasn't
nervous and, as in all experiences, I suppose as you go
on doing something you get a bit more confident, a bit
more relaxed. I suppose that's true, yes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, that there's a humbling
debate PM: ( inaudible)
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: As I am by nature humble I guess you'll see it right
through the campaign, yes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what's your reaction after last
night to the Liberal campaign ads that there are
questions which have to be answered?
PM: Right, a good question. I mean, you have to have a
bit of a laugh to yourself they are questions that
have to be answered. How many times did Mr Peacock
refuse to ask me a question? I mean, there he was,
national television, time after time being pleaded with
by the compere, ask a question, no. So I think for the
rest of the campaign this proposition about there are
questions for Mr Hawke to answer is going to look a bit
hollow. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Labor Party is
presumably not going win in Fairfax. Which way would you
suggest they directed their preferences? To Senator
Stone or the Liberals?
PM: Well I believe we've got a fair chance of winning
and I would hope that that would be the outcome. But I
don't know what arrangements they've made, it really I
don't intervene in, in the State where they work out
their preferences because there might be some reason for
one State for doing it one way or another. Let's, I mean
I hope I won't offend anyone in my own Party here, but I
suggest my personal inclination would not be to give
preferences to Senator Stone. I mean, the Liberals
occasionally get these things right and they've got it
dead right. I mean, what a devastating situation in the
Opposition today. The Liberals did get it right. He's
not the sort of person, Senator Stone, that people would
want to vote for. I wouldn't want to vote for him.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, how many seats would you hope to
win in Queensland
PM: Well, we're optimistic about winning several
additional seats. I don't want to be exhaustive about
it, but I think we've got some very good chances
obviously in seats like Kennedy and Dawson, Moreton. But
I'm not being exhaustive about it. I think we have good
chances in those three certainly.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one of your backbenchers, Mr
Alan Griffiths, has been associated in a radio interview
with allegedly referring to the NCA investigation into Mr
Elliott. He's now also confirmed an investigation into
insider trading in one of the major banks. Is this the
kind of indiscreet behaviour you would expect of one of
your own
PM: In regard to Mr Griffiths, I understand that he has
made these comments in an attempt, appropriate from his
point of view, to clear his name. Because what was being
suggested, as I understand it, by Mr Elliott and others
was that Mr Griffiths had been responsible for some leaks
concerning him. It seems to me that this issue is well
and truly dead now in the sense that the producer of the
ABC program himself has said publicly that the source was
traced to the National Companies and Securities
Commission. It's in those circumstances where the
producer of the program in question has indicated that
the source was not government but close to the NCSC that
Mr Griffiths apparently thought it was appropriate to say
something to clear himself from the accusation. I
would've thought that the matter is appropriately dead.
Because just let me add to the point I've made, that the
producer of the ABC program himself has said that the
source was not the government but close to the NCSC. And
secondly it's quite clear that any papers that the
Attorney-General has seen and on which he's acted, are
available to Mr Peacock.
JOURNALIST: would Mr Griffith's behaviour
improperly allegations about insider trading to make
PM: He wasn't doing that for the sake of doing that. He
was establishing the context in which he had been
talking. Allegations were made implicating Mr Griffiths
in having been the source of the leak in regard to Mr
Elliott. Now he found it appropriate to establish the
context of what he'd been talking about. And I make it
quite clear that there's no way in which he was the
source. And, as I say, the end of the matter is that the
producer of the program himself has said not a government
source but close to the NCSC. You are really tilling
pretty unfertile soil in trying to go past that point.
JOURNALIST: issue is dead, but obviously the
Liberals don't regard it as such and today there's one
commentator writing an extensive column about dirty
tricks. PM: That means that if a particular commentator
wants to keep going on and on and on about something that
means that the issue is really politically alive. I mean
on the basis of that logic, I mean every issue that any
commentator anywhere wants to write about is still a
relevant I just don't accept that. The reality is
that the issue of the allegations that have been made by
Mr Peacock and Mr Elliott are buried by the observation,
the public observation that the producer of the program
was the source of the leak. Not government, but close to
the National Companies and Securities Commission. Try as
you might, you can't get that. They are ones who
produce the program and they are saying where the source
is.
JOURNALIST: But it still leaves the problem that Mr
Griffiths in defending himself felt it necessary to give
further information which perhaps should remain
confidential? PM: Well, as I say Michelle, you can keep on trying to
till this particular piece of barren soil if you like.
I'm simply saying that the facts are quite clear as to
where the source was and one of my Members, Mr Griffiths,
found it necessary because insinuations have been made
about him to create the context of comments that he had
made before. Now where he has been subject to
insinuations then it's not surprising that Mr Griffiths
is going to try and defend himself.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, would you agree that the major
parties seem to be underestimating the likely results for
the Australian Democrats and if the coalition does
get into power would you agree they'd have major problems
getting their programs, especially economic and
privatisation programs
PM: You see I just don't accept the premise that The
Opposition is not going to win. Let me say as far as
we're concerned, in seven years in government, we've had
our problems with the Democrats. But we've had to live
with that fact of life. And in the fourth term if they
try and stand in the way particular proposals, still
try and get them through, negotiate with them.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, last night Mr Peacock appeared to
distance the coalition from the Garnaut Report's
recommendation on tariffs. How prepared are you to
commit a future Hawke Government to pursuing that
particular PM: There's two parts to that question. Let me take the
first part first. We have another example here of
division within the coalition because Mr Howard of
course, who's the relevant minister, indicated his
commitment to the Garnaut proposals. Last night you had
the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock venting his
difference with Mr Howard. I made it quite clear at the
time of the report that I had a personal disposition and
sympathy for the Garnaut proposals. That's on record
from the time I launched the Garnaut Report. We've done
more than that though. We've received the report and
we ' ye referred the report to a number of working
committees. As you know, there are very many
recommendations in the Garnaut Report. I've had those
referred to working committees. After the election when
we resume government then the work will be done. Now we
have a record of action rather than rhetoric in all the
period in government in recent years. The Liberals have
done nothing in areas of tariff reduction. It's been the
Labor Party, and as I say, our runs are on the board. My
philosophical commitment in this is quite clear. I've
got the work going on the Garnaut Report and that will be
pursued when we resume active government.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, Mr Keating was asked in Perth
yesterday whether it would take five terms of Labor
Government to fix up the economy. He agreed that it was
possible that it could take that long. Why do you think
the voters will have that much patience?
PM: Well, in the end the voters are going to have to
make a choice. That is at the end what elections are
about. Just look at the issues that are involved in the
choice there. For 30 out of the last 33 years before we
came in the Liberals were in office. 30 out of 33 years
before we came to office. And so if you're talking about
the institutions, the practices and the attitudes which
constitute the Australian economy, the Australian
industrial structure, then it's the outcome of all of
that period of conservative government. Second point
you'll recall that I have issued the challenge. Now it's
about 80 or more days ago, I think it was the 7th of
December 1989 at the National Press Club, and I said
there to the conservatives, you produce for the
Australian people any evidence of any period in your term
in government when you came within a bull's roar of the
massive microeconomic reform that we've undertaken in
seven years. So that's the second point. That
challenge, as you know, has gone unanswered. Why?
Because they know that in all their period of office they
did nothing about microeconomic reform. We are the
reformers. Now the electorate understands that. That's
the second point. So in seven years we'ye done
infinitely more than has ever been done before to undo
that ineptitude, almost criminal neglect of 30 years. I
think that when you add to that thirdly the fact that
last week, while Mr Peacock was dodging you, giving the
flip one liner as he hopped in and out of a car, I was
steadfastly going about practical issues for the future.
Last week I set out in detail a ten point program for
further microeconomic reform in our next term. Now when
you take all those things together, and each one of the
points I've made is relevant, I think the Australian
electorate will massively, on that issue, come down in
favour of Labor against the conservatives.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in view of the mixed
reception, I would suggest it was a poor reception that
your wages-taxes package got last week, do you think now
perhaps building on the back of last night's debate you
need to relaunch it so that it can be more credible and
can be the centrepiece of your re-election strategy?
PM: I don't accept poor, that it was poorly received.
But always with these statements Paul and I understand
that you've got a continuous job of selling to do. We
will continue to I think it is true that we'll need
to keep on doing that. It's going to be relatively
easier now after last night in that the Leader of the
Opposition has now starkly set out the alternative, which
is chaos. Under the package that Paul Keating unveiled
last week you have now a clear commitment which can be
understood by Australian wage and salary earners. But
what will happen to their real disposable income under a
Labor Government in terms of wages and tax cuts, and most
importantly, superannuation? Let me, just if I can,
interpolate on that issue of superannuation. I think
that you will find that superannuation is something of a
sleeper in this campaign.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Just wait I want to make a further point about
that You look at the difference between Labor and
the conservatives on this fundamental issue. When we
came to office superannuation, predominantly the preserve
of the privileged, under Labor is now being extended
through not just some white collar workers but to blue
collar workers and to women. Look at the features, now,
look at the features, the four features of that
superannuation element of the package. Firstly the fact
that it tackles imaginatively a significant future
problem for Australia. One of the significant facts that
Australian electors have to have in their mind as they
think about the future is the fact that we are an ageing
population. 30 years down the track this country, if
action is not taken now, will have an enormous problem in
regard to ensuring that the aged are looked after. So
the first point about our superannuation package is that
it is an imaginative plan for a future problem.
Secondly, and very importantly, it is a plan which is
relevant to the savings and debt problem of Australia.
You know that under the superannuation plan of Labor
involved in the package that you are going to have a
massive accumulation of savings which will be relevant to
dealing with Australia's debt problem. Third, it is fair
because it means that superannuation is being extended to
everyone in the community. And fourth, it means that
when the three per cent superannuation part of the
package is worked out over these next three years, it
means that each employer will be each week putting $ 30 a
week into the superannuation position of every employee.
Now, against that imaginative, far-sighted, economically
relevant and fair scheme for superannuation, which is
part of the package, the Opposition would destroy the
superannuation situation. So I think Paul as we explain
the package as a whole, and I think superannuation in
particular, that that is going to be a plus in the
campaign. Wally.
PM: With your projection of continuing fiscal discipline
can motorists have any real hope that you will improve
the Pacific Highway significantly?
PM: Well, I'll be having something to say about roads
during the campaign I think. I'll leave what I have to
say till then.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, also on the weekend Mr Keating
suggested that the six per cent inflation figure which
the wage and tax deal, could actually be bettered
this year. What do you think of the chances of that?
PM: Paul bases that on these issues. Firstly, as you
know, as I've said before and he has, that the Treasury
said at the end of last year that the underlying rate of
inflation was Now since that statement by the
Treasury you've had a position where there is further
evidence of a decline in demand and I believe that when
you take that into account and the fact that under our
policy there will obviously be a decline in interest
rates, if you bring all those things together I think
that Paul's prediction is sound.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you think in retrospect that
the wage-tax package could have been explained any
better? PM: I think in regard to the exposition of any policy
you can always do things better. But then you can always
write better than you do and I can always explain things
better. Unless you think you can. I don't think you
do think that. All of us can do things better.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Of course. I mean I don't think that I'm ever
perfect in regard to any matter. Do you? I mean
obviously you can do, with hindsight, you can do some
things better. Of course you can.
JOURNALIST: What would you have done differently?
PM: I don't know that I would've done anything
differently. I mean you do your best at the time. But I
think that Paul Keating did, as he usually does, an
absolutely outstanding job. I'm simply saying that I
suppose well if you look back over things you might have
done that a little bit differently, or that a little bit
differently. But Paul Keating is both an outstanding
thinker and he is also, I think, an outstanding
expositor. I think that what you must understand is a
very simple and obvious point, that here in regard to
this economic statement, you had a quite unique situation
as distinct from any other one. Every other one has been
delivered in the Parliament, nationally televised within
that framework. Here, for the first time, it wasn't done
in the Parliament. It was done in the more heated
S environment of an election campaign. I think within
those circumstances probably those who've been associated
with it, Paul and myself have done as well as you could.
But let me say this. As far as the rest of the campaign
is concerned I'm looking forward very very very much to
expounding our wages policy against their absence of a
wages policy, our superannuation policy against their
commitment to absolutely destroy the existing
superannuation system. And that will be a very
interesting proposition because, as I said at the
beginning of this press conference, the Achilles heel,
the point which will destroy the credibility of the
Opposition, is their absence of a predictable wages
outcome. You cannot conduct economic policy in this
country if you can't conduct wages policy.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, is there any prospect in your
next term of a reduction in the top marginal personal
rate to the corporate rate or will it stay at the present
level?
PM: I give no commitment to outcomes but let me say
this. I'll just ask you to look at our record. When we
came to office the top rate was 60 cents and the bottom
rate 30. We've brought it down to 47 and the bottom rate
to 21. So as distinct from all the rhetoric from the
conservatives about taxation, we are ones who've acted to
bring the rates down. And we will approach this matter
in terms of economic responsibility. If, as the economic
situation unfolds, some further reductions would be
appropriate and responsible, then that will be done.
JOURNALIST: Today a high technology that makes
heart pacemakers has decided to leave Australia and
manufacture in the United States. Ralph Sarich..
likewise last year. Does it concern you that we're
losing these and why do we seem to lack a technical
11
PM: Of course that is a completely loaded question. I
will simply respond to it by saying that in a country
like this that's open to people if they want to make that
decision. In the case of Sarich to whom you refer, we
gave very significant financial incentives to him, as did
the Government of Western Australia. But we were, if I
can coin a phrase without being subject to criticism,
incentives. The State Michigan in the United States
gave a very significantly greater incentive. Mr Sarich
made the judgement in those circumstances that he'd be
better off going there. But I'll simply reply to your
proposition by saying that if you want to I will take you
to enterprise after enterprise in Australia,
sophisticated manufactured products where within the
Australian environment Australian enterprises are taking
on the best in the world in the most competitive markets
in the world and beating them. As I said last night, 54%
real increase in manufactured exports in the last four
years. And if you really want to get the contrast, and
again you get down to a matter of choice on the 24th of
March, just look at the Australian steel industry and
think about that. When I came to office in March of 1983
BHP, as everyone knows, was contemplating closing down
the steel industry. After seven years of conservative
government the Australian steel industry was virtually
destroyed. I saved the steel industry. And because of
the fact that our policies are giving predictable wage
outcomes, a significant 60% reduction in industrial
disputes, and a new era of co-operation between
management and labor, has produced a situation where the
Australian steel industry is now a massive exporter of
steel, is undertaking further investment now to enlarge
its export capacity. So those are the facts. And simply
because you can pick one who's made a decision to go
overseas, so what?
ends