PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH VINCENT SMITH, RADIO
JULY, 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
SMITH: Our special guest on the program this morning is the PM
of Australia, who yesterday launched probably the most ambitious
program of reform for Australia the complete revamp of
relations between the Commonwealth and the States. The founding
fathers had some almighty blues when they were putting together
the Constitution and I suppose any future change will not be
achieved without some disagreement. But the founding fathers
said the scene almost 100 years ago, and it is fitting that any
major review, any major change should be ready for the centenary
of federation in the year 2001. Like the PM I hope plenty of the
changes can be operating long before then however, for they are
sorely needed.
Good morning to you PM.
PM: Good morning Vincent.
SMITH: How are you?
PM: I'm very well, and you?
SMITH: Fighting fit, thank you.
PM: Good on you mate.
SMITH: You must be pleased with the reaction this morning.
PM: Yes, it's been very positive and I think it reflects a
great deal of credit upon our politicians, and the media and our
people because I think there is an understanding that we've all
got a responsibility, irrespective of our political persuasions,
to try and do the best for our country now to get it in shape for
the 21st century.
SMITH: r suppose in a way the climate is right, it's almost
been created hasn't it, for suggesting ouch reform.
PM: I think the climate is good. We've got, I think, a
range of very capable political leaders around the country now in
the States and in Baying that, I don't, in any sense just reflect
PM ( cont) i the fact the majority are of my political persuasion
because I went out of my way yesterday to point out that in NSW
the Liberal leader there Nick Greiner has been very open minded
and responsive to the sorts of things I've been saying.
SMITHs Well he says he believes you're fair dinkum and he
supports what you've talking about.
PM: So the attitude is good. I think there is an
understanding when I think particularly people have taken on what
I've been saying recently that when you look at Europe, by 1992
those twelve independent nations of the European community would
have created a situation where there will be less impairment to
the free flow of goods and services between those twelve nations
than there is between the States of Australia. And I think that
sort of hit people between the eyes and makes them realise that
we've really got to do better.
SMITH: It rather makes it an urgent task for us as well
doesn't it?
PM: It is and that's why I said yesterday, Vincent, that I
don't want some long drawn out voluminous enquiry which looks at
everything and then some years down the track says well here's
our report. I want us to be able to deal with issues as we go
along so that if something is capable of being fixed, quickly,
then that's done. Other things of course will take longer but
let's commuit ourselves to a process of change. It took me, I was
very interested in your introduction, Vincent, it did take our
founding fathers the whole of that decade of the 90' s in the last
century to prepare for Federation. The first convention was in
Sydney in 1891, then they went over to Adelaide in 1897, and then
back to Melbourne in 1898, and it wasn't until the 1st of January
1901 that Australia came into being. well we ought to realise
that we should now use this decade leading up to the centenary of
Federation in 2001 to make and consistently go on making the
changes that are necessary to equip Australia to go with
confidence and with the most efficiency into what's going to be a
very, very tough* competitive 21st century.
SMITH: On the Constitutional side, do you see it as a major
re-write of the Constitution.
PM: Not necessarily major, I mean it just depends what pace
of change the people want. But I think there are some things
that can be done pretty quickly. For instance, as I said
yesterday, I think that we can get, at the next election, a
referendum up and passed I would think, giving four year terms
because whoever is in govt, it's better. I think everyone
realises that if they have four years rather than three, to go
about the process of government and Dr Hewson, I pay him credit,
seems to share that view, so I think we can get agreement on
PR ( cont): that. Other Consitutional changes may taker longer
but I think we ought to use this period, this decade to look at
those changes in the Constitution on which we can get agreement,
because the ninety years up till now have been barren basically.
It's all been political controversy when it comes to referendums.
So what I want is a process where we can sit down together, the
political parties, the Constitutional lawyers and interest
groups, and say well, can we get agreement on this or that issue
for Constitutional change.
SMITH: Would that anxiety for consensus tend to compromise
some of the reform do you think?
PM: Well I think the answer to that is without consensus
and constitutional change you don't get change. That's what our
history of the last ninety years shows.
SMITH: So you have to have a consensus then?
PM: The last time we got Constitutional changes was in the
when you had a Conservative Govt proposing and Labor
Opposition supporting the change in the Constitution to give
power in regard to Aborigines to the National Govt. Now that was
where you had bipartisanship. Unless you have that, change is
very hard to get.
SMITH: Do you think there will be Ican hear some of the
clamoring now I suppose, people saying that this is just Canberra
lusting after more power, a socialist scheme for centralised
power. PM: Well this is bloody nonsense if I can be quite direct
because as said yesterday what I'm about is putting everything on
the table and if there are areas where it looks as though it's
better to give the power or the delivery of the service back to
the States, well, let's do it that way, if we can be persuaded
that that's the best way of doing it. And yesterday I gave back
a power, which is worth $ 400M. We have a bank account deposits
tax and I said well look I'm prepared to hand that back to the
states, it can be an area where they can make the decisions about
that. It won't affect the need for central macro economic powers
to be with the Commonwealth. So I'm not about trying to get miore
power. I'm Just trying to get a situation where the citizens of
this country are going to have their services that they want
delivered in the most efficient way and if that means, for
instance, in some areas the States saying well you can probably
do that better alone, well we'll do that. In others, we are
Baying well you can do it better in the States, well let's do it
that way. Not everything will require the same sort of solution.
SMITH: That offer yesterday, was that seen, or did you want it
to be seen as a demonstration of what the Commonwealth is
prepared to concede to the States.
PM2 I wanted it as an indication of my sincerity about the
purpose of this exercise and it was something that the States
wanted and I believed it was something that they could have.
SMITH: What do you see as the most pressing need for change.
PM: Well, it's very hard to put one priority but I
nominated yesterday two areas where I thought we should really
start working. There's a lot of room for combined effort to get
better solutions in the area of health and social welfare
delivery. Now if you look at the area of health, particularly as
it affects our elderly citizens, you have this interchange
between the Commonwealth and the States. The States are
responsible for the hospitals, but we put an enormous amount of
money into that and the hospitals are a service for our elderly
people in many respects, but there in regard to their elderly
people's accommodation, we're in the field of nursing homes and
hostels. And we're both, Commonwealth and States, in the area of
delivering services to the aged in their homes. Now inevitably
where you have the States and the Commonwealth interacting in
those areas of hospitals, nursing homes, hostels and domiciliary
assistance, then there is overlap and there is duplication, not
only of services but of monitoring of the delivery of services.
Now I think those are areas where we ought to see change. In the
area of transport, we've really got to do something about getting
a more efficient, co-ordinated Australian transport system. So
that's going to require a lot of co-operation between us and the
States in the area of rail, so that rail ceases to be as it is
nlow, an enormous financial burden upon the taxpayers but by
getting both a more efficient co-operation between the States and
a better integration with road services, that we can deliver to
our economic enterprises in this country, a more efficient
transport infra-structure.
SMITH: You conceded yesterday that maybe there was a need to
have a look at uniform non-bank financial regulation and under
considerable heavy questioning.
PM: Oh no, not under considerable heavy pressure, I didn't
specifically include it in my speech, I knew I would get a
question about it, and my answer was consistent with exactly what
I had said in the speech, and that is, that we ought to have two
criteria that we're aiming at in that area. One is efficiency of
supervision and the second is uniformity. Now the way to do that
as I will have it on the agenda for this special Premiers
conference that I'm calling at the end of October, we'll have a
lot of work done and consultation between the Commonwealth and
the States beforehand, and I would hope that out of that process
the States would agree on a system of supervision which they
could all apply, and then the States would actually have the
responsibility of applying that uniform effective system of
supervision.
SMITH: Do you think there's been a change in the way in which
the States think on matters like this, because it's taken an age
to get anywhere near consensus on for example, uniform companies
regulation.
PM: Yes, that has been a slow process, but fortunately I'm
able to say that the result of the work of my Attorney General#
Michael Duffy, and now with greater response from the States, we
look as though that we will be able to have the uniform system
operating from the 1st of January of next year. Certainly it
took too long, but it's an area which is absolutely necessary
when we get that outcome.
SMITH: Does it leave you a little bit disheartened about the
prospects for consensus on some of the wider issues.
PM: No not disheartened at all. I know it's not going to
be a bed of roses and some issues will be more difficult than
others but I don't think we've ever had in my time in politics a
more propitious conjunction of circumstances than we've got now.
As I look around the States I see a range of Premiers who I think
are capable, and who are committed to change, and to say that the
majority of these Premiere are of my political persuasion but I
want out of my way yesterday, as I say, to indicate that Mr
Greiner in NSW has a constructive approach, and I think the
circumstances are right now. They understand that in times of
economic constraint and challenge, we've just got to do, all of
us, each govt has got to do our task as efficiently as possible.
Now in some areas that may mean giving up something and letting
others do it, and vice versa. And I think they all understand
that now, better than they ever have before.
SMITH: Will you be taking the Commonwealth's agenda to the
October Premiers' Conference.
PM: It won't be our agenda alone. What I've done is
already indicated the things that I think ought to be on the
agenda but I've written to the Premiers and said, now you also
nominate what you want on the agendao and between now and then,
we will have a working group of senior-level officials,
Commonwealth and State, developing working papers on the items
that both I and the States want dealt with.
SMITH: And from that, things will get rolling pretty quickly?
PM: Yes. I made it clear yesterday that I don't want a
long drawn out process with some voluminous report years down the
track, we'll look at that report. W~ hat I've said is there
are some things that can be done quite quickly, where they can be
identified and agreement achieved, let's do it, so that we've got
a rolling program of change.
SMITH: And you would be looking in the area of health for
immediate start.
PMHS Well there's a lot of work to be done there
Immediately, but I don't. I'm not being prescriptive about it and
saying that's the only area but there may be others where we can
do some things even more quickly.
SMITH: The States may have some ideas.
PM: Ohl * not may have, they will have, and I've invited
them. I wrote to them yesterday morning so that they had my
speech before I delivered it and the indication to participate
and I know, that there will be a constructive response from each
of them.
SMITH: PM, thanks a lot for your time this morning.
PM-. Thank you very much indeed, Vincent.
SMITH: It's something the nation needs.
ENDS