0
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 3 APRIL
1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: Good afternoon. A few comments to start with and
0 tthhee n elIe cwteilocno. m e Yyoouu r maqyu ehsatvieo nsn. o ticFeidr stt haotf tihne thoeu tcpoemrei odof
since last Saturday week I haven't been bouncing around
the place making great claims about victory and so on. I
have had my head down and engaged in the serious business
of getting ready for the fourth Hawke Labor Government.
However, I should say about the outcome of the election
first of all that I am indebted to the people of
Australia for the confidence that they have once again
reposed in me and my colleagues. I was often asked
during the election what my view was as to the likely
outcome and I think many of you will recall perhaps that
I said, almost adnauseam, that I was confident, without
being cocky or complacent, and I want to say that having
achieved victory I am now neither cocky nor complacent, I
am grateful that we have been given the opportunity once
again of serving the people of Australia. I think I
discharged during the campaign the obligations that I
felt I had to set out to the Australian people the
vision, and the plans and the concepts that we had for
0 the future. And I can give the people of Australia the
commitment that what was promised during the campaign
will be delivered. Now as I say I have been engaged in
the process of drawing up the Ministry for this fourth
term and I attempted in this period to use the authority
that I believes rests with me to secure a direction that
I thought was appropriate. That is I understand that
there must be, in the formulation of a Ministry within
the Labor Party, some taking into account of the group
within the Party. And it would-be-futile to try and
avoid that fact. But I was determined that those
considerations would not monopolise in any way the
outcome of the Ministry. I also understand that there
must be some taking into account of state and regional
considerations. Again that can't be an exclusive matter
but neither can it be totally ignored and I want to
express my appreciation to the Caucus and the groups
within the Caucus for the way in which, generally
speaking, they took account of my wishes in this regard.
I believe in the outcome, as a result of the co-operation
2.
that I have received, that I have been able to establish
in this fourth Hawke Ministry one which has a great deal
of vibrant new talent and one which I have been able, in
the allocation of portfolios, to place in a way in which
I believe will ensure that in this fourth term there will
be the delivery of relevant and imaginative constructive
government. And as I say I thank the Caucus for the way
in which I have received their co-operation. There is no
addition to the Ministry but I have appointed four
Parliamentary Secretaries whose duties will be as
outlined in the accompanying statement to assist their
portfolio Ministers in the area of correspondence,
assistance with departmental papers, the making of
inquiries on behalf of Ministers, representing Ministers
at official engagements, meeting with delegations and
clients, maintaining liaison with other members of
Parliament, and generally acting in a way which will be
of assistance. And this will be a way in which, at
minimal cost, another group of people are able to gain
experience. One feature of the decisions that I have
made that I would also particularly draw to your
attention is the fact that I have asked Senator Collins,
in addition to his portfolio duties, to be the Minister
Assisting me on issues concerning northern Australia. It
is very interesting if you look at a map of Australia now
you will see that the whole of the north of Australia has
put its trust in Labor. Western Australia, the Northern
Territory, Kennedy, Leichhardt at the very north, and
ones below that. So it is appropriate both in terms of
the intrinsic importance of northern Australia and the
fact that northern Australia has put its confidence in
us, that Senator Collins is particularly well informed on
the needs, the opportunities and the challenges of
northern Australia should be advising me in this way.
Finally, before I make myself available for your
questions, I would put on record here, as I did in the
Caucus, my gratitude to those who have served as
Ministers but who will not be in that capacity in the
fourth Hawke Ministry. There are eight departures. Four
who are retirees and four who have been compulsorily
retired. In regard to those eight, and they are Senators
Walsh and Reynolds, and in the Reps, Holding and Morris
and West and Duncan and Jones, and very importantly of
course, my dear friend, Lionel Bowen. To those eight I
place on record my thanks and the thanks of my Party for
the service which they rendered.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke have you.. and Mr Keating got the
guts to continue to tackle Australia's economic problems?
PM: Just before I answer that question I also meant to
say, and I take this opportunity of saying it, that it is
for me, a matter of very great satisfaction that my
friend and colleague Paul Keating was unanimously elected
Deputy Prime Minister. It is an honour which he has
thoroughly earned, and thoroughly deserves, and I look
forward to working in a sense of an even closer
relationship, if that is possible, with Paul in his dual
3.
capacity as Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer. Now the
question was have we got the guts to make the tough
decisions. I believe the answer is yes. We have in the
past, I believe, made the tough decisions. The best
evidence of that I suppose is the nature of the campaign
that was run against us. They say look at what you have
done to Australia. That was our opponents cry. Of
course it was a very slick, superficial analysis but it
was referring to the fact that we had been prepared to
make tough decisions. And I think on our record, to the
extent that tough decisions are necessary, they will be
taken. But let me finally make this point. That while I
believe there will be tough decisions to be taken in the
next three years, we also believe that it is going to be
a very good period for Australia because of the sorts of
things that I was talking about in the campaign. And
also because in fact that some of the tough decisions
have been taken in the past. What we are now going into
the nineties with is an Australia in which more
Australians are employed, better trained, and with better
equipment. We have in that the foundation for growth and
for greater competitive capacity.
JOURNALIST: Why did Senator Walsh have his doubts about
that? PM: Well I think my friend Peter sets particular
standards, has expectations which are not always either
necessarily economically correct or politically sound.
But having said that let me say in respect of Peter Walsh
that I think that Peter Walsh has been a person who has
made an enormous contribution to the achievements of my
Government in the past seven years. And despite the fact
that he has expressed some reservations don't upset me.
I want to place on record my sense of obligation to him
for the contribution he has made. I think that he would
be the first to admit that he tends by nature to be the
resident pessimist. And he is entitled to be such. But
I don't share the pessimism which he has expressed.
JOURNALIST: Who is going to be the resident pessimist
now? PM: Well I guess he is around for a while, isn't he.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what do you think Senator Walsh is
w6' rried about with the power of the environmental lobby.
How.. will you. balance the. environment and how much
of a debt do you owe the environment lobby
PM: Well I think that any democratic government anywhere
in the world today that is going to be one of the classic
challenges of Government. How you balance the legitimate
concerns for the environment and the need for growth.
And I will just say one or two things about that. I said
during the campaign, and I don't want to say it at great
lengths because all of you would have heard me say it
before, that it is the fact that on the one hand we had
record economic growth, record employment growth, during
the seven years of my government, and at the same time we
have achieved in the area of the environment the
situation where the World Heritage Bureau has said, that
no government has done more to advance world heritage
values than has Australia. So I can talk about this not
in nebulous terms of balance but saying, well look at the
records. Record growth and a record achievement in
regard to world heritage values. And that hasn't been
easy. I mean it is all very well for people to sit down
in the comfort of their analyst armchairs and deliver
their opinions but to make those decisions at times is
very very difficult. And I think I can look Australia in
the eye and say, well look at the record, I think we have
done it fairly well. Now I don't pretend that in the
next three years that it is always going to be easy. But
I can say that we will approach these issues on the basis
of knowing that we have got to strike the right balance.
Now having said that let me make a raw concrete
observation that I think that I was going to have to
build upon what I have already done in this area in terms
of process. Let me remind you of what that process has
involved to this point. At the end of last year I called
meetings of groups from farmers and miners and so on as
well as the environmentalists and put before them the
concept of sustainable development and undertook that we
would have prepared a working paper on that concept which
would then be brought back to the groups. And then, on
the basis of agreement, we hoped that we could get, we
would then take that concept into a whole range of areas
of rural industry, manufacturing industry, mining,
tourism and so on, and having got hopefully an agreed
concept then try and work through the implications of
that in these areas. Now those processes are going to
continue. But what I also had in mind is that I will, I
think, be recommending to my colleagues that probably we
should establish a subcommittee of the Structural
Adjustment Committee which, for want of a better title at
this stage, would perhaps be called the Sustainable
Development Committee of the Structural Adjustment
Committee, so that I would have the input of the relevant
departments, environment, primary industry, DITAC,
without being exhaustive about it, so that in this way,
both through what I have done and now trying to get the
concept of sustainable development formulated and with a
process within the government, enable us better to deal
with these issues so that there will be a total framework
we can.. reduce adhocery as much as possible. Now these
are concrete ways in which I think I can answer your
question. And finally, I think there is a part of your
question, how much do I feel that we owe to the
environmental forces. A very considerable amount. It is
not possible at this stage, I mean all the analysis
hasn't been undertaken, but I would find it very
surprising if both directly and in terms of influence
upon the votes to the Democrats and so on, I would be
very surprised if indeed there hadn't been a significant
influence in the number of seats. I am grateful for that
support. I think it was earned by the decisions that we
have made in the past and I will be conscious of the
representations of that area in the future but we will
not be their captive.
JOURNALIST: Senator Walsh over the economic effect
of immigration. Have you got any comment on that?
PM: Yes, there is a view in Australia, and it's
interesting how it spans the political spectrum, David,
from extreme left right through to extreme right when you
think about it's get the Rainbow Alliance strange
group of people who would be either reduced immigration
people or zero immigration. Now I'm not, by philosophic
disposition, a low immigration person. I believe that we
have basically got the, the balance right. We have to, I
think, always have as a fundamental criterion the
economic capacity of Australia to absorb migrants. And I
think that the figure that we've been running at, at
about 140,000 net a year is about right according to that
criterion and I'm aware of the fact that some people want
to argue that immigration at that level, or some say at
any level, imposes unacceptable economic strains. I
believe that that is an inadequate economic analysis
because I believe that you've got to look at the other
side of the coin and point to the pluses of immigration.
The point is getting the balance right in economic terms
and I think, David, we've basically at about this level
got it right at this stage. I would hope that as we go
on that we may be able to look at higher levels of
immigration. That would be my propensity rather than
lower, but-economic
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: just a minute the economic criteria is
important. The final point I make is this, that one
thing that will be a constant, hoee, inn the
immigration area, as far as I am concerned and this
Government is concerned, that we will never in any
circumstances allow the, the race card to be played. And
I must say that this campaign was unfortunately marked by
the use of that card. It happened in 1984, it happened
in the Parliament in 1988, it surfaced again in this
election and indeed I, it's probably can be argued that
there's one member of this Parliament, the Member for
DaCwe, who can owe his election to the fact that he
distributed in the last weeks of. the campaign a letter,
blatantly racist in its appeal and deliberately false. A
letter to the electors of Lowe that they would have
80,000 Japanese living on their doorstep under the Multi
Function Polis, or 80 percent 80 percent of the
people that would be there. Why people who profess to
have principles resort to these sorts of tactics, I, I
just don't know. They have not sense of responsibility
to the future of this country.
JOURNALIST: Well the issues outlined by Senator Walsh
had nothing to do with it
PM: No, no, of course not. I mean, let me make quite
clear, David, in any of the comments I made about race
that had nothing to do with Walsh's comments. The first
part of my response where I was talking about economic
matters, were relevant to what Peter had said. There was
no suggestion in what I'm saying that he was going to
those issues.
JOURNALIST: Would you that any way to deal with the
economic aspects of the issue to be raised?
PM: Well
JOURNALIST: The impact on savings and on
PM: I'm simply saying that our judgements have been to
this point that the, I mean, we haven't lightly reached
our judgements about the immigration levels. They have
been reached on the basis of what is economically
appropriate. Now I'm saying I think they've been
economically appropriate to this point, I wouldn't want
to see them lowered.
JOURNALIST: raised by Senator Walsh, he gave a very
bleak picture of the Australian economy, saying that time
was running out for Australia and that it was urgent to
address the problems over the next couple of years. Do
you think that he, that he exaggerated the extent of our
problems? PM: I think he somewhat exaggerated them, yes. But
that is a, a, I suppose, a legitimate technique of the
Cassandras. If they have a feeling of concern, I suppose
if you want to make colleagues and the community think
about economic issues it's a reasonably valid technique
to write the message large. I think he's written it too
large, but having said that, having said that as I did
during the campaign, we haven't got easy street coming
up, we have not got easy street coming up. I think we've
got the prospect of very good streets, of great avenues
opening up, but they're not going to happen just by
assuming, as Australia too often has tended to assume in
the past, that she'll be right mate. What we have
diamonstrated to this point is that you need tough
decisionsboth in the.. macro. economic and the micro
economic field. And as I said to the Caucus in my
address this morning, there will be tough macro economic
and micro economic decisions required and to the extent
that they are required, they will be taken. But what I
am saying is that I think we've got a great deal of
evidence which I think Peter has not sufficiently paid
attention to. We've got a great deal of evidence of
very, very significant improvement taking place in
Australia's competitive position. After all you can't
have a massive increase in the number of people employed,
you can't have a massive increase in the education of
your people and the training of your people and you can't
have all that happening with the massive re-equipment of
your economy and not in fact be seeing good things
happening. I mean, I saw them during the campaign. I
went around Australia and I saw an Australia which is
becoming more competitive. For instance, I think there
would be some of you here who would have been with me
when we went to that Pacific Dunlop tyre truck factory
in, in Melbourne and there you had both management and
unions proudly talking about the fact that together
they'd been to the United States for twelve months, had
brought back what they'd learnt there and now we ' re
establishing there, in Melbourne, the best state of the
art plant in the world. Now those things are happening.
Now they haven't happened by accident, they've happened
because we'ye created the environment for it. But we
can't be complacent about that. We've got to continue to
do it. We will.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister on macro and micro economic
reform PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: What specific macro and micro economic
reforms then would be your priority issues
PM: Read the speech of the 22 February, Geoff.
JOURNALIST: Senator Walsh wants fiscal policy
tightened. Now is that something which you'd be planning
during the next few months or as far as you ' re concerned,
is fiscal policy on hold?
PM: No, fiscal policy is never on hold and, see, I have
to say to you people so frequently when you ask me
questions like that look at the record. I mean, we
have not in seven years been a Government which has said
of any arm of policy, it's on hold. I mean, how can you
you take the area of fiscal policy where you produced a
situation where you've had a 7.1 percent turnaround,
billion in terms of reduction of Commonwealth outlays,
four successive years of real reductions in outlay. I
mean, what possible intellectual basis have you got then
for talking about putting things on hold. What we do,
we've done each year, we've looked at the three arms
of policy wages policy, we sit-down, we say there you
are, we'll work it out, we come to an arrangement with
the trade union movement and say there you wage and
salary earners and you employers now know for the next
period what your incomes and costs are going to be. In
regard to fiscal policy, both at the time of, of May
statements or April statements and the Budget we
undertake the task of seeing what is necessary in the
area of fiscal policy. And in the area of monetary
policy no-one can say that we haven't been active in that
area. I mean, I've just been through a campaign where
the impact of monetary policy decisions was the number
one issue. Now, now, Paul, in other words what we will
be doing this year will be the same. We will be, as we
approach the Budget, we will be looking at what the
appropriate fiscal settings should be. Not resting on
any laurels.
JOURNALIST: tough decisions already been taken, so
that there is room for a little bit of easing
PM: Well, I think the right
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: No, I think the right answer is this, that you won't
be able to expect the same degree of fiscal cutting in
the future as you've had in the past. I mean, there is
a, you don't get into some exponential or even arithmetic
series in this sort of thing because when you've made big
cuts as you have in a whole range of areas, you are
getting rid of more fat and getting closer to the bone.
So I don't think there's anyone with any knowledge of the
economy and the social structure of this country who
sensibly believes that you can go on in the same measure
as the past. That doesn't mean, however, that savings
are over. I mean, just look at the most recent
experience. I mean, here we are just into April and
already in this year we've shown what we can do. This
was what distinguished me from my opponent in this last
election. What we did first was to get the savings, the
new savings, then on the basis of getting the new
savings, made our new commitments. So there are still
things that will be looked at and but it would be
unreal to think that you're going to have the same sort
of availability of expenditure cutting that you've had in
the past.
JOURNALIST: A Party Committee A Party Committee has
been meeting for two years discussing privatisation. Is
that one area where you want to move more quickly?
PM: I'll be interested in getting their, their report.
JOURNALIST: When do you expect that?
PM: I don't know. In the last week when I've been
e faged in these matters I haven't really been on the
phone. ringing up about that.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well, we'll see. I mean it depends on what' s in
their report. But it's not a matter about which I feel
nervous at all, Peter.
JOURNALIST: But if micro economic reform
PM: Just, just let me make this in the area of micro
economic reform, may I say, I don't think that the
question of whether the airlines are sold or not is by
any means, by any means, the most important area of micro
economic reform. It's not irrelevant, not saying it's
irrelevant, but let me make it clear to you I don't think
it's by any means the most important.
JOURNALIST: Parliamentary Secretaries look a bit
like over-manning while we're on the subject?
PM: No I don't think they look like over-manning.
There's been in the history of federation, in the history
of federation, a fairly, you know, continuous use of
them. And you can go back and a long, long way back and
I've had people do that for me and they've pointed out
that in one form or another they've been used for a long
period during federation. They were used in the ' 70s by
the McMahon Government and then formalised by the Fraser
Government with the legislation in 1980 and they
appointed a number of them. They have a situation where
there's obviously no possibility of saying that this was
a factional accommodation thing, I mean, the factions
have made their adjustments and that's evident in the
list you've got before you. But I, I think there is a
case for them. I don't think it's the sort of thing that
you want to have great numbers of and some people might
have liked more. I don't think there is a case for great
numbers, but I think I've got the balance right there.
JOURNALIST: Is Bob McMullan's appointment a token
gesture? PM: No, you ask Bob McMullan. He certainly doesn't
regard it as such.
JOURNALIST: why didn't
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: Why did Kelly get a Ministry and he didn't?
PM: Well, you've got a situation where there are
positions, 30 positions and within that 30 there wasn't a
place for, at this stage, for Bob McMullan.
JOURNALIST: reflection on his talent?
PM: No reflection on his talent at all, nor does he
regard it as such.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, going back to Senator Walsh's
remarks, were you surprised that yesterday he referred
people approvingly to John Stone's critique of the 1988
Budget, do you think he is totally wrong and what's your
PM: Yes, I had a, I had a private meeting with Peter
yesterday and as I think you know now from seven years, I
don't talk about private meetings in any detail, but I
don't think Peter will mind if I say this. That during
that private meeting he referred me to this, this speech,
as I understand it was September 1988. 1 asked was it in
the Parliament, he said no it was outside the Parliament
so you can see we talked about it
JOURNALIST: Did you get a copy?
PM: No, just a minute, just a minute. Don't get so
excited, Michelle, just wait. And I said to him that I
didn't necessarily regard Senator Stone I was going to
say the late, that's improper but the ex-Senator Stone
as a great authority on matters economic. And I reminded
Peter of the fact, fact which are burnt indelibly into my
memory of Stone in his earlier capacity, or incapacity,
whatever, which way you want to look at it, Secretary of
the Treasury. In that capacity when we had the
discussion in the Cabinet room about the floating of the
dollar. And Senator Stone was vehement, vitriolic in his
opposition to the floating of the, of the dollar and had
the view if we did it the dollar would go through the
roof. Now and that we would learn to regard this as
one of the great mistakes to be equated with the
percent tariff cut in the Whitlam Government period, that
we would come to regret that like Whitlam came to regret
that. I reminded Peter of this and said with that sort
of background, Peter, don't be surprised if I don't have
the faith that you may have in John Stone and his
analysis. Having said that I said I'm not therefore
saying that everything he may have said in this paper is
necessarily erroneous. I'm simply saying that on my
experience I have no reason to regard the pronouncements
and the analysis of one John Stone as of any great
significance. JOURNALIST: Did the environment groups express any
concern to you about Graham Richardson's move from that
portfolio? PM: They had hoped that Graham was going to stay in the
portfolio so there's no state secret about that. That
view had been conveyed to me. But I think the next thing
to say is that they do understand and accept, albeit
reluctantly, Graham's reasons for leaving that portfolio.
I believethatin the.. appointment-of Ros Kelly they will
have someone who will be very, very understanding of
their position consistent with the overall
responsibilities that she has.
JOURNALIST: Did you offer the job to Kerin?
PM: I discussed the matter with him, Michelle, because I
must say I was fascinated as no doubt all of you were
by the suggestion that both the ACF and the Wilderness
Society made that if they couldn't have Richardson they'd
11.
like Kerin. I was fascinated by that, as he was, and we
did have a bit of a yarn about it. But you see Kerin has
the problem of the talents, I mean he has a remarkable
talent as Minister for Primary Industry, without any
question the best Minister for Primary Industry that this
country's ever had, to use the bucolic analogy, no-one's
ever come within a bulls roar of him and is likely to.
He is just very valuable in that area and it's an area in
which he wants to stay.
JOURNALIST: So was it a rebuff to the environmental
groups to appoint Ros Kelly?
PM: No, not a rebuff. They would've liked Richardson,
he wasn't available and in their thinking they expressed
this desire for John Kerin. John Kerin's not available.
I've given them a very good Minister.
JOURNALIST: Did you try to persuade Senator Walsh to
stay and if so did you offer him any change of portfolio?
PM: I think that part of the discussion I had with
Senator Walsh is appropriately between me and Senator
Walsh. JOURNALIST: During the election campaign, Prime
Minister, you made some predictions about interest rates.
In view of the emerging international and domestic
pressures now on rates do you care to make any further
predictions? PM: The predictions I made have been fulfilled. That is
that if we won as we have that the Treasurer would be
talking immediately with the Reserve Bank that he has
done. He's had discussions with the Governor of the
Reserve Bank. The board of the Reserve Bank is meeting
today. After their meeting the Treasurer will be talking
again with the Governor. It would be presumptuous for me
to speculate on what the outcome of that will be other
than to say that it is a matter of record that we did
what we said we would do and that is, through the
Treasurer, conveyed our view to the Reserve Bank that the
conditions were there for a fall in rates. Now as to
what that will be, we'll see.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you think the appointment
ofrR alph Willis as the Minister for Finance will send the
right-message-about the determination of your Government
to handle the tough issues in your next term?
PM: As far as messages go out, I don't think there's
just one appointment. I think that the reaction of the
markets as of the media and anyone who looks at it
will be that this is a remarkable Ministry. It's a very,
very well constructed and talented and fresh blooded
Ministry. I think the markets, to the extent that they
look at it, will be very encouraged by the determination
that the Prime Minister has shown and the cooperation
he's received in shaping an appropriate Ministry.
JOURNALIST: Was Senator Ray at one stage led to believe
he would get the Finance portfolio?
PM: No, not by me or as I understand by anyone.
JOURNALIST: What are you expecting from Dr Hewson and Mr
Reith?
PM: What am I expecting from Dr Hewson and Mr Reith?
Well JOURNALIST: the answer?
PM: Well the answer is Liberal, they are both Liberals.
It's a bit early to say and seriously I don't want to be
ungenerous about this. I mean, I am, I don't want to be
ungenerous about it. Clearly Professor Hewson brings to
the position a good knowledge of economics even if he
gets his ideas wrong. I mean he knows what economics is
about. He's literate in it and understands things even
if some of his answers are wrong. It'll be very
interesting, for instance, I tried to get your interest
during the campaign on a couple of points, to get the
question up to Professor Hewson and I'll give him the
opportunity. Just to show how generous and charitable I
am, I give him notice now. I'm going to try and find out
from Dr Hewson why it is that as a Professor of Economics
in 1987 he had a very firm and unqualified view that
there should be a capital gains tax but when he became a
captive Liberal politician he changed his mind. I mean,
this is one of the things that's going to be interesting
to see with Dr Hewson as Leader of the Opposition how to
what extent he may bend his economic beliefs to what he
regards as the imperatives of Liberal politics. But I
think that Dr Hewson brings positive qualities to the
position. I would say this finally in regard to Dr
Hewson and then I'll have something to say about Mr Reith
in a moment, but I'd say this finally about Dr Hewson.
However closely I will be watching Dr Hewson it will not
equal in the intensity of scrutiny that of those behind
him and alongside him. It will be very interesting to
see the reaction of those opposite. We'll be very
modulated in our reaction. Now Mr Reith, well now here's
aifascinating one isn't it, Mr Reith. He made his
reputation on the-~ basis of going out and defeating our
proposals for a referendum. Four year terms, our
proposals, and now part of the Reith proposal for a
better Australia is what? Four year Parliamentary terms.
He's got a certain amount of elasticity which was to me
JOURNALIST: Will you be having another go on that
question in this term of office on constitutional reform,
Mr Hawke? For example,
13.
PM: I must say that one is tempted at the first meeting
of the Cabinet to put a bill through for a four year or
five year or a ten year term immediately. I think having
had this election I'd have a fair chance of satisfying
the dual constitutional requirements of an overall
majority and a majority of States.
JOURNALIST: So will you
PM: I said I'm tempted, and I'm..
JOURNALIST: On the question of constitutional reform,
will you be having another crack at it in this term of
office? PM: Look, I am very pessimistic about constitutional
reform, not really about the people of Australia as such,
but I'm pessimistic about the vision of the Tories in
this country. I mean, it is to me still almost
impossible to understand how any responsible party in
this country without going to all of the four points
where I can if you want to go through the four of them.
But you just take the obvious one's, the one's I've just
talked about four year term. Take the proposal that
there should be entrenched into the constitution a
provision that if any citizen were in a situation where a
government had compulsorily required his or her property,
they were entitled, as a constitutionally entrenched
provision, to fair compensation. But the Tories of this
country opposed that, as they did the four year terms and
the freedom of religion and entrenching in the
constitution the rights of local government. By any
objective assessment, the interests of Australia into the
future would be well served by each of those proposals
being passed but these people have no capacity, no
capacity for looking at the real interests of the
Australian people. They are political opportunists par
excellence. They knew that each one of those proposals
which their leaders had in fact supported in one way or
another within their own party and within their own
constituencies, but when it came to the question of
supporting them politically, they were not prepared to
because they regarded it as politically opportune to
inflict a blow upon the Labor Party, little caring that
the blow was really inflicted upon Australia. That's
wbhpt makes me depressed about constitutional reform. The
incapacity of the conservatives of this country to have
any vision and commitment to the future of this country.
JOURNALIST: What about national powers over prices and
incomes as a possible subject for constitutional reform,
Prime Minister?
PM: That doesn't fascinate me very much, David.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, given that an alleged rumour
PM: One of them.
JOURNALIST: Given that an alleged rumour has received
national circulation if not national credence-
PM: Now what's this one?
JOURNALIST: Can you briefly, essentially briefly, give
us a report on the condition of your health generally and
your prostate gland in particular?
PM: Well I think it's for you to judge. I mean, if we
had a in general I'll come to the prostate gland in
particular in a minute. Perhaps you're not in a position
to judge about that and I don't intend to give you the
opportunity of becoming more familiar
JOURNALIST: Perhaps I should ask Hazel.
PM: Will you deal with your colleague, will you deal
with your colleague. But, I mean, I think in answer to
the general question about the state of my health, I
mean, I submit myself to you. I went through a pretty
vigorous campaign, I think I held up well, I felt that I
did and I think I look OK now. My general health is
excellent. As to the state of my prostate, at this stage
I'll leave that as between my doctor and myself.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, just back on the election
campaign, the Labor Party's vote fell to a very low level
Why do you think that it was and do you think
there's a need for some sort of internal review process
to look at-the reasons for that happening
PM: Within the Party?
JOURNALIST: Yes.
PM: Oh no. What we always do, Geoff, after an election
is we have a detailed analysis provided to us by the
Secretariat. And may I just parenthetically say what a
brilliant job I think Bob Hogg and the Secretariat and
the Party did in this campaign, I think they did a
brilliant job. The post-script of that brilliant effort
will be, I think, a very detailed analysis provided to us
and we will sensibly and responsibly analyse that report
that we get. If out of that there are lessons to be
l-~ arned, you can be assured that we'll learn them and
that we'll apply them. Going to-your question more
broadly, it's a question as you know that was asked many
times in the campaign and I'm not saying it critically
because you are talking about the future, what will we
learn from. But going to the point generally about the
lowered primary vote, I think it was a combination of two
factors perhaps more than that but two essentially.
One that I referred to during the campaign that I think
that in this country as around the world, there is a
heightened and a significantly heightened interest in the
environment. I mean anyone who's analysing politics and
doesn't understand that, you know, shouldn't be in the
game. And that was true in this country. Now we
understood that, we understood that and in an intelligent
way, I believe, throughout the campaign and then
particularly in the last week, we said to people well
alright we weren't critical of them, we didn't abuse them
for wanting to vote for others particularly on that
ground. We said what you've got to realise is that when
you wake up on the 25th either Hawke or Peacock you've
got as Prime Minister and what they stand for in regard
to environmental matters and what their record is. So I
wasn't terribly phased about that phenomenon because it
is a global phenomenon. I think we intelligently reacted
to it, not just in the election but that we have been
ahead of the game in a very large extent from 1983.
We've understood that these things are important, we've
made the right decisions, not to attract a vote but
because there is a great commitment within the Labor
Party certainly under my leadership to discharge the
obligations we have on these matters. So our vote went
down in part because people are now so concerned about
that, they wanted to register their commitment to these
issues by a primary vote in that area. I think that's
one reason. Now I don't ignore, Geoff, the other factor
that there is some disillusionment with my Government and
people were hurt by high interest rates, they didn't like
it and they protested in that. But they also, as I said
to many of many of you in one to one conversations, I
said I have faith in the intelligence of the Australian
electorate. I said it to meetings of you as a whole and
I talked to you individually. I've said all along that I
have great-faith in the ultimate intelligence of the
Australian electorate. What they did say, well alright
we don't, you know we're not too keen about you, we'll
not give you the vote, the primary vote we had before.
But they looked at the alternative, Geoff, there is no
way that they were going to be voting for them. In what
mattered in the end, we got the of preferred votes.
Look, we'll just have three more.
JOURNALIST: Do you see the significant vote for
parties as now being a permanent feature of the political
landscape or do you think it will
PM: Oh no, I don't think it's necessarily a permanent
feature, Glenn. I mean just let me take one part of the
answer I gave to Geoff that if we get the economy going
in a wayI. hiope it will and_ we,_ at.. this stage of the
electoral cycle, are able to go up with not that
oppressive burden of high interest rates that we had to
have and a more congenial economic environment then I
think we'll get many more primary votes for that reason.
So I don't think you can say it's a permanent feature but
I do say this, that I can't see the interest in the
environment significantly diminishing. OK, there's just
one here and one up there.
16.
JOURNALIST: Just going back to your earlier statement on
micro economic reform and the question Geoff asked. Will
you mean then that the statements released during the
election campaign on micro economic reform was going to
be the blueprint for change and that you weren' t
envisaging any further
PM: Well you remember the statement, you read it? I
mean it was a very comprehensive statement which covered
areas.
JOURNALIST: But a lot of the measures have been
announced previously. I was just
PM: Oh no, no, no, no, no. If you look through that you
will see in each of the 10 areas nominations of areas
that had to be addressed in the fourth term and I mean I
wasn't trying to give a flippant answer to you, Geoff. I
mean, it's all there and it wasn't you know, said for fun
JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: Just a minute. It's not a debate between you and
me. I'm answering a question. In that area as in the
Ballarat speech before, the Ballarat speech was delivered
on. Now some people say not at the rate that some of
them would've liked. But I simply assert, as I've said,
before, at a faster rate than ever before but I'm not
resting on those laurels and what the 22nd I think it
was the 22 February speech was about was saying well here
are the 10-areas of micro economic reform in which we're
going to operate and I think you can see by the
composition of my Ministry and the sort of people that
are there, that I'm very serious about that. Now there
was one up here.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, said at the weekend that of
the big challenges for the Labor Party in the next three
years was support of the greens into the Party
How important do you see that challenge and do you think
it can be achieved? The second point he made in a
personal capacity was that the Government should look at
managerial salaries seemingly high in some areas. Is
that something that could see you
PDT: Well I'm in favour of getting as many people into
the-Labor.. Party as possible who-. are . consistent with the
basic philosophy of the Labor Party -and it's legitimate
to talk about the greens and so on -but let's not get
into a mind set where we think that's the only issue. I
mean, I go back to the answer I gave before that we've
got to get the appropriate balance. But for those people
in the community who have a real involvement in the
commitment to environmental matters, I think this
election should show that in the end the Democrats and
the greens, they are not going to form governments, not
in the foreseeable-future and not in my life or beyond
17.
that. Governments are going to be formed by either the
Labor Party or the conservatives, whether they be 2 or i,
whether they finally marry. Therefore I think a lot of
people with interests in environmental matters would
perhaps see that it makes sense to get into the Labor
Party and express their point of view. Last one, Paul.
JOURNALIST: Do you see any merit in the idea of a postelection
May Statement or would prefer to wait until the
Budget for the bulk of the economic initiatives after the
election? PM: I would think that it's a Budget matter, Paul.
ends