PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, RICHMOND BRIDGE, HOBART
MARCH 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
PM: Today we are witnessing yet another piece of
dramatic evidence of the commitment of the Liberal and
National Party coalition to ensuring that those who are
already most privileged in this society should have that
privilege further entrenched. The policies that they've
announced in regard to child rebates and child care
rebates mean very simply that there is no targeting in
terms of need. Those who are already best off in the
community will do best out of their proposals. This is
consistent with their whole approach to government.
You've seen it in regard to capital gains tax, that
they'll put billions of dollars into the pockets of less
than one per cent of the richest in the community. The
whole approach in regard to capital gains tax, education,
superannuation and now in regard to children. It is an
obscenity that scarce resources should be wasted upon the
highest income people in the community without any
targeting to those in need and that those of us in the
community who are already the best off should do best
under their proposed policies. Further it is quite clear
that the policies announced will create no new places
and, further, that it will be open to rorting. It is a
situation which will lead to a nightmare of
administration and has already properly been condemned by
those in the community who are most knowledgeable in this
area. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one of the key themes of the
Opposition leader today is ' a vote for Labor is a vote
for more of the same, that there'll be no change, that
the status quo will remain'. Isn't this one of the
toughest arguments that they've got to throw at you?
PM: If that's the best argument then you're going to see
me walking around for the next three weeks with a large
smile on my face. The answer is in two parts. It is one
of the few statements made by Mr Peacock which has some
accuracy in it. It is accurate that you will have more
of the same in that under my Government there has been
the creation of 1.6 million new jobs. And I remind Mr
Peacock that that's a rate of job creation five times
faster than in the seven years of their government. And
it is true that there will be more of the same, that we
will continue to create jobs significantly faster than
jot
could possibly happen under their policy. So he's right.
He's also right that there'll be more of the same in that
Medicare will be maintained so that in this country every
person will be covered, so that there will universality
and fairness in regard to Medicare. He is right in that
respect, that we will maintain and save Medicare against
the proposed demolition of it by them. He's also right
in saying that there'll be more of the same in regard to
education. I remind Mr Peacock that under their seven
years they did nothing to lift the rate at which kids
stay in school. I've doubled it. There's two out of
three of the kids staying on because we have applied
funds to those in the community, the lower and the lower
to middle income areas, so that their kids can stay on in
the education system. He's right in that respect. He's
also right that there'll be more of the same in regard to
the taxation system. That is when they walked out of
office the top tax rate was 60 cents in the dollar and
the bottom rate 30 cents in the dollar. Under my
Government it's been reduced to 47 and 21. How has that
happened? It's happened because I brought to an end the
disgrace which was the taxation system under Peacock and
Howard and Fraser. A system which was described by their
own Royal Commissioner as being a country where the
fastest growing industry was the tax avoidance industry.
A country with a tax system which was described by
Professor Russell Matthews as a country in which it had
become increasingly a matter of choice as to whether the
rich paid their tax. So he is right. There'll be more
of the same. The closing of the-tax rorts which they
allowed to flourish. There will not be the situation
which he promises, that is of a reversion to the past
where billions of dollars were passed to the wealthy out
of the pockets of those who need it by way of increased
expenditure for education and health which we have used,
the money that we get from the capital gains tax, is used
for the benefit of a great mass of Australian people. So
you can see, yes he is right in very many respects that
0 there will be a continuation of the same, that is to
economic growth, employment growth and a fair system in
which government is used in the interests of all
Australians rather than to prop up the privilege of the
few. A second thing to say about his statement is that
we have created, and are creating in cooperation with the
Australian people, the basis for a prosperous future for
Australia. We inherited an Australia which was inwardlooking,
where manufacturing industry was diminishing,
where employment was declining in manufacturing. I
inherited an Australia in which after seven years of
conservatism the steel industry of Australia was going to
be closed down. Now, under my Government we've created a
situation where not only have we saved the steel industry
but it is now growing in terms of its exports all around
the world. We now have created the basis for the future
where exports are going to grow, where we will have a
more competitive Australian economy. We've also created
a situation where we'll be tackling, for the future, the
debt problem by extending superannuation right through
the population. That will be relevant to the needs of
individuals. It will be relevant to the savings and debt
situation of Australia. At the end of their period we
had an Australia which was uncompetitive. Now we have
these things. The highest investment surge in Australian
history the highest investment surge in Australia's
history, more people in work and more people being better
trained. These are the building blocks for a future
competitive Australian industry and Australian economy in
which there'll be more jobs, more secure jobs and better
trained Australians.
JOURNALIST: On the environment Mr Hawke, Senator
Richardson has estimated that about 20% of voters could
leave the major parties for the green candidates. Given
your speech yesterday, what's your estimate?
PM: I don't pretend to know the figures. All I can say
is I've read the various analyses and polls that have
been done and they do seem to have a common feature, that
the green candidates, independent candidates will
probably have a higher vote than they've had before. My
point yesterday is simply this, that for those in the
community whose first concern is the environment, they
simply then have to ask themselves the only important
question " If my concern, my primary concern is the
environment, which of the two parties which will form
government that is Labor or the coalition which has
the best record on the environment?" The answer to that
question is simple. As I've said before, I repeat it
again, the Franklin in this state of Tasmania runs free
because of Hawke and Labor. The Liberals would have
dammed the Franklin. The Daintree Rainforests are not
logged because of Hawke and Labor. They would be logged,
would've been logged and continued to be logged under the
Liberals and the Nationals. Kakadu is not mined because
of Hawke and Labor. It would be mined under Liberals and
the National Party. The tall forests of Tasmania have
been saved because of Hawke and Labor. They would be
felled under the Liberals and National Party. So that is
the question. Whatever the number of people is that is
going to vote 1 on environment, they must give their
second and determinative preference vote to Labor.
JOURNALIST: Further on the environment, will the Labor
Party's three uranium mines policy be maintained
throughout your fourth term?
PM: I would believe so. We've got a position of course
where the Party is looking at the whole question.
But from what I can gather, the economic situation is
that there wouldn't, it wouldn't make sense to go beyond
that. It is proper that I should say we've got to get
the report of the committee, but that's the inclination I
have, yes.
JOURNALIST: What's the future for Medicare under your
Government? What's going to happen to the levy?
PM: The Medicare levy will not be increased in the life
of the next government. It's been made clear by Dr
Blewett. As you'll appreciate, the forward estimates
cover the projected ongoing costs of Medicare. The
position for the voters of Australia in regard to their
health care is crystal clear. You have a government
which has instituted a system which is both universal
every Australian is covered and it is fair because
people like the Prime Minister on high salaries and Peter
Harvey on a reasonably good salary Peter, we pay more, as
we should, so that all Australians are covered. Against
that you don't have to rely on my own words. Let me
quote the immortal words indelibly imprinted on the mind
of every concerned Australian of the shadow minister for
health, Mr Shack, and he said the Liberals and the
National Parties do not have a particularly good track
record on health and I do not need, he said, to remind
you of our record in government. One thing in this
S campaign, in the pre-campaign period which the Liberals
have got absolutely right. Their record is appalling.
JOURNALIST: Mr Peacock's talked about relaxing Loans
Council limits on the States for infrastructure projects.
Would you support relaxation of the Loans Council limit?
PM: If we had a proposal before us which could be
regarded as relevant and targeted for a particular issue
we'd be prepared to look at it. But Mr Peacock's problem
goes far beyond that. I understand that he is making
available the princely sum of $ 3 million for cleaning up
beaches and rivers. That's for the whole of Australia
$ 3 million. I'm told this morning that the estimate here
in Tasmania by the authorities is that for cleaning up
the Derwent alone, the River Derwent would cost $ 52
million. $ 3 million is pretty irrelevant isn't it.
JOURNALIST: Given that the environment is a big issue
and you do have these concerns about independent or green
candidates, is there anything more that you're able to
announce in that area?
PM: We'll be making an environmental statement later.
There'll be references in the policy speech and perhaps
some other comments. But I'll just make two points.
One, that is that there'll be more things to be said and
I will be saying them before the campaign is over.
Secondly, the choice couldn't be starker and clearer.
The point is that you've got to test parties on issues
for the future on the basis of what they've done in the
past. I remind you and all the people of Australia that
on every fundamental decision that we've taken to protect
the environmental future of Australia, we have been
totally opposed by the Liberals and National Party. The
second thing of course is to say this. That even if some
sections of the Liberal Party, and I concede that there'd
be some elements of a very divided Liberal Party, there'd
be some elements of the Liberal Party which would have a
reasonably enlightened view in regard to matters
environmental. But the realities are of Australian
political life that on all issues, and particularly
environmental issues, the National Party tail wags the
coalition dog. People who are concerned with the
environment have got to realise what it would be the
National Party who would be laying down the law for the
coalition on these issues.
JOURNALIST: Your Government paid out $ 26 million in a
grant to buy the Abel Tasman passenger ferry in 1984.
Are you prepared to commit your Government to a future
financial involvement of cross-sharing in
PM: I've indicated that when we're returned after the
24th that we are prepared to discuss these matters with
the Tasmanian government. I have a record in regard to
Tasmania which is, I think, second to none in terms of my
personal commitment to Tasmania. And as I said when I
was down here the other day launching the Tasmanian
package, that was not just something done in an election
campaign. From day one of my Government, the night of
the 5th of March, I said when Tasmania wiped the slate
clean of Labor Representatives in the House, I said ok,
that's happened, but I'm here to govern for Tasmania.
I've delivered and more than delivered on every promise I
made to Tasmania in regard to the Franklin and on every
Land Council I ' ye gone beyond what the recommendations
were to take account of what I see as the special needs
of Tasmania. So the package that I delivered here a week
ago is in I would point out, as the Premier is
concerned, that every single Tasmanian ought to be scared
mindless of the Liberal and National Party policies in
this campaign, because it represents a cut to Tasmania of
about $ 62.5 million. That's what their proposals mean
both in terms of the loss to individual Tasmanians and to
the State through the cutting of programs of their
policies. Every Tasmanian before they go into that
ballot box on the 24th of March should know that the
contrast couldn't be starker. Prime Minister Hawke
consistent with what he's done in the seven years, he's
come up with an additional package now, positive increase
in funds for Tasmania. The alternative, a slashing by
$ 62.5 million if the Liberals and National Party were to
form a government.
JOURNALIST: How many seats do you think you'll pick up
in Tasmania Mr Hawke?
PM: I'm looking hopefully at all of them, at all of
them. Because in light of just what I've said, really,
what Tasmanian concerned for himself or herself or their
kids, could possibly vote for a coalition which is
promising to slash $ 62.5 million off Tasmania. So I
believe that the appeal of Labor against our opponents is
going to be strong in every electorate.
JOURNALIST: One seat, two seats?
6
PM: I would like to get the five.
JOURNALIST: Is the economy facing a rise in unemployment
as a result of the economy contracting?
PM: No not a rise in unemployment. I believe that what
we're going to see, and what we are seeing, is a slowing
down of the economy. But you can have a situation where
you can have a slowing down in growth without necessarily
a rise in unemployment. What you've got to remember is
that part of the economic management of this country
under my Prime Ministership and our Government, has been,
as I've said, this massive employment increase. I just
want you to understand the implications of that and how
it's made up. That's 1.6 million new jobs. And as I've
said, that's five times faster than before, it's twice as
fast as the rest of the world. It's been associated with
an enormous increase in the participation rate. The
participation rate is at its highest level ever. And in
fact, just note this statistic. If in fact the
participation rate today was the same as when I came to
office, the unemployment rate would be That's a
foundationally important statistic to have in your mind.
If you had the participation rate of when I came to
office the unemployment rate would be So what
you're looking at is a slowing down of the economy
deliberately engineered because we were operating at too
high a level and bringing in too many imports. We've got
to slow it down somewhat so that we can deal with the
external account problem. But we will still have
economic growth and still have employment growth.
JOURNALIST: keep the unemployment rate around that
six per cent mark then?
PM: That's what we would be aiming at, about that order.
JOURNALIST: The seventh anniversary today, any
celebration planned or anything like that?
PM: I couldn't think of a more idyllic place in which to
be celebrating it. I've put my movements, if you like,
and my holidays where my mouth is. Within the last three
years twice I've come down at Christmas time at the end
of a hectic parliamentary session to have a few days in
Tasmania, because there's something very special about
Tasmania as far as I'm concerned. People say well
y'know, you haven't got the industry and so on that
you've got in the mainland. That's true but the things
that you have got here are fantastic. We've got to do
our best to make sure that they are preserved, like this
magnificent bridge in the background. We've got to see
that that's protected. I like Tasmania. It's a good
place to be on the seventh anniversary. And whereas seven
years ago Tasmanians, because they were misled about the
Franklin you remember they were told then by the
Opposition and they were told by the Hydro-Electric
7
Commission here that if you didn't dam the Franklin
Tasmania wouldn't have the power needs that are required.
The people of Tasmania were misled. It's been conceded
since that that was not right. But we lost five seats
then. So I'm here now seven years later and I hope it's
on the edge of keeping of course the one we've got and
getting the other four. That would be the best
celebration I could have, post-dated for the 24th.
JOURNALIST: government has written to your Transport
Minister expressing concern that Tasmania would be worse
off and suffering after deregulation because of lack of
flights and services and higher air fares. What can you
say to alleviate those concerns?
PM: Yes. We have made it clear that we believe that the
continuation of the two airline policy was something
which was against the interests of Australia. I don't
think there's anyone really can argue about that. It's
been a matter of fascination for me that I'm supposed to
be the man who looks after Sir Peter Abeles. Sir Peter
Abeles and Ansett of course had a very cosy situation
with the two airline policy. I've kicked the props from
under that, as should happen. Now, I have said also that
we will be monitoring the operation of the Australian
aviation system after the end of the two airline policy
to see that the interests of areas like Tasmania are
protected. I have no reason to believe from what I have
heard from the industry and what I've heard from my own
Ministers, that Tasmania needn't have that fear. But I
give the people of Tasmania this clear guarantee. We'll
be monitoring what happens when the two airline system
finishes because I will want to ensure that Tasmanians do
not suffer.
ends