PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH RON BELL, RADIO 2GF, GRAFTON
16 AUGUST 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
BELL: Good morning Mr Hawke.
PM: Thank you very much Ron. It's a great pleasure to be
here with you.
BELL: They mentioned last night in the introductions and
the outros etc that it's your first trip as Prime Minister.
Have you been before?
PM: Yes, and I just passed the pub, walking here, where one
night about ten years ago Hazel and I stayed overnight. We
were on our way from, driving from Sydney up to Brisbane and
we'd gone for ages without being able to find any room at an
iHnont ela. n ywhIe rjeu. s t Wbeu mgpoetd hienrteo tahned wfeenltl owt o itn hef roPnots t oOf ffiit. c e'He
remembered our visit. I remember with pleasure the
magnificent breakfast we had there. But unfortunately it
was a very brief visit.
BELL: You're game mentioning driving up the Pacific
Highway. PM: Well if you want to go the question of the Pacific
Highway we've got, you know, quite a good story on that. I
mean I recognise of course the tragedies that have occurred
there but we have not been idle about that. There are, have
been legitimate concerns about the highway. But as you'd
know Ron, on the 14th of May my Minister, Bob Brown, the
Minister for Land Transport and the NSW Minister for
Transport announced a package of joint Commonwealth-NSW
funding for the highway which will see around some $ 300
million invested over the next three years, which is almost
treble what had been spent over the previous three years.
But we're not only doing that specific expenditure which
will tackle the most cost effective measures to improve it,
like extra overtaking lanes and widening and straightening
dangerous curves, but in the wider sense we're also, in
conjunction with the States, attacking the whole area of
dangerous areas of roads. And even more broadly we're
establishing the National Road Trauma Advisory Council so
that we're going to try and bring in the best independent
expert advise there is as to what are the sort of things,
just in addition to the obvious expenditure on roads, that
governments round Australia ought to do to try and tackle
this major problem.
BELL: Is a part of the problem we're a small country in
people numbers and we're a big country in geographical ways?
PM: It's one of the problems Ron. Obviously youi put your
finger on it. We're 17 million people in the largest island
continent in the world and for us therefore transportation
is a particularly important determinant of both our standard
of living and the quality of life. That's why, since we've
been in government, we have significantly increased in real
terms the amount of funding for roads. I suppose the
Australian people will never feel that governments have
spent as much as they'd like. But it's a question of trying
to get your priorities right. One of the features of
Australia when you're talking about the nature of the size
of our country, one of the problems of course is the
division of responsibilities between the Federal and State
and Local governments. And that's why just recently I made
that major speech in Canberra in which I'm going to be
bringing the Premiers together in the special Premiers'
Conference at the end of October. This is not calculated to
try and have any Party political advantage, but what I want
to do is try and get the Premiers together and say look,
let's just openly, directly and without prejudice examine
the respective functions that we fulfil, Commonwealth and
State, see where there are overlaps, whether there is a more
effective and more efficient way of conducting our business.
I must say Ron I'm very pleased with the very positive
response I've received from the Premiers and I think
Australians can look forward to their politicians and their
governments now tackling this issue in a more effective way.
BELL: If we can go back to March 24, that Saturday night,
did you prior to then think two fairly political
lightweights from the North Coast would be so critical on
that evening?
PM: Well let me say, I'll tell you honestly what had
happened. On the Thursday night in Sydney I'd had some
people into Kirribilli. We were doing a little bit of
fundraising. Stephen Loosley said to me after they'd gone,
we were just having a cup of tea together, he said we'll
deliver you Page. I said really. He said yes, we'll
deliver you Page. I said that's marvellous. And he said,
I'll tell you one thing, he said, this will come as a
surprise to you. He said keep your eye on Richmond. I said
you're joking. He said no I'm not, you keep your eye on it.
So you see that Loosley at least had a feeling that we could
make it. I at that stage hadn't had the pleasure really of
knowing Harry Woods he's sitting here next to me as I talk
to you but I've obviously got to know him well since his
election. It doesn't surprise me that he won because he's a
great bloke and he obviously has got the qualities that I
think the people in this electorate will find attractive.
He will consolidate this seat. After this of course I'm
going on to Richmond and we'll talk about that there. But
I'm here with Harry and I think you will find that this is
going to be cemented as a Labor seat.
BELL: Just touching on the up and corners in the Party. In
your Ministry we've had two recent visitors here to the
electorate through the work of Harry David Beddall and
Robert Tickner just this week. They're very impressive
young men.
PM: Thanks Ron, yes they are. We're very fortunate in that
regard. Even our political opponents have acknowledged that
the quality of the Ministry I've been able to have around me
since ' 83, but you go to at that point we've got a
reservoir of young talent there and you certainly refer to
two that come into that category.
BELL: Last night you referred a couple of times to using
the words sustainable development. Some people either don't
want to hear those words or refuse to accept them. How do
we get them to accept that we have to have sustainable
development in this country?
PM: Well I think it's a question of education, of
reiteration of issues, but most importantly it's the
creation of processes. That's what I've been about, in two
ways Ron. Firstly I established the Resource Assessment
Commission. That was before the election. Now that's a
body headed up by Mr Justice Stewart. That's going to
address major broad issues like forests, coastal development
and the question of possible development in the southern
part of Kakadu Park. Now under that process it will mean
that those who want to see development, those who want to
put environmental arguments are going to have this totally
independent national body that they can go to, put their
arguments and their case, then that Resource Assessment will
then make recommendations to the Government. I think that
must give confidence to the community and to particular
interest groups that they are going to have a full and
unfettered right to put their case and that decisions are
going to be made on the basis of independant advice. So
that's one part. The second process is, you talk about
sustainable development, I've now with my colleagues set up
groups in various sectors of industry, without being
exhaustive, covering manufacturing, covering tourism,
covering agriculture, covering forests. on those committees
that we'll be establishing the actual development people
will be represented, the environmental people will be
represented, the trade union movement will be represented.
And in that way we will translate from the rhetoric of
sustainable development into a process which will enable
people to be heard and I think confidence to be engendered
into the decision-making process. I think that's the way
you've got to do it.
BELL: No doubt Harry Woods has brought your attention to a
problem that could be coming up here with a forest to the
west of Grafton, the Billilimbra State Forest and the
logging of that, or proposed logging of part of it. That,
as has been detailed there in the paper that you're looking
at, if the forest is locked up it's going to be a disaster
for this area. Can Harry, through you, seek your into
that? PM: Yes sure. You'll appreciate that in the area we're
talking about here, this is a State Government area of
responsibility. I'm not saying that to try and dodge your
question. But it does go back to a thing that I was talking
about before, about the division of responsibility in this
country between State Governments and the Federal
Government. Now what we try and do in the Federal
Government is to say where there are areas of State
responsibility we ask them and we expect them to carry it
out with due regard for the sorts of considerations that
I've been talking about growth considerations and
environmental considerations. But to the extent that there
is any relevance for us in our area of responsibility, I
know that Harry will make representations to our appropriate
Ministers if there is a role for Federal Government. But
you see we've got this, you know, just part of this broader
problem that we've got. You can't have the argument
sensibly conducted by saying it is for Australia either
development or the environment. You've just got to get the
balance. It's just inevitable in that situation Ron that on
some occasions one interest or other is going to say you're
wrong. BELL: Some of the radicals on either side say we can't
accept PM: And that's the importance of processes that I was
talking about before. If they see that you're dinkum about
creating the opportunity for a fair hearing and independent
assessment I think that's the most they can ask.
BELL: I don't want to get bogged down in the Middle East
thing, I don't know enough about it. I just want to ask you
a question. Obviously when you made the decision to send
the Australian naval ships there you would have expected
some criticism. How do you convince those people what you
have done is for the long term benefit of this country?
BELL: Again by exposition. I of course will be making a
statement in the Parliament but if I could just share
briefly my thoughts with you. I've said, it's a paradox,
I've said it's the most serious decision I've made as Prime
Minister, but in the end it was also an easy decision
because the principles and the issues are quite clear. And
that is that if you read the history of the 20th Century
there is one thing that stands out with dramatic clarity in
that dreadful dismal decade of the 30s. That the world was
subjected to the horror of the Second World War through a
combination of two things. It was not only the villainy of
Naziism and those associated axis forces that was an
important precondition of the dastardly things that happened
in the 30s. But the other precondition, without which it
wouldn't have happened, was the appeasement of those with
the power to stop evil. I've just recently read a massive
two volume biography of Winston Churchill by William
Manchester and what burned clearly into my mind was that at
the end of the Second World War there shouldn't have been
one Nuremburg trial, there should have been two. One for
the Nazis and one for the appeasers. Because it took the
both of them to produce the tragedy of the Second World War.
In other words, if the world community wants to have
respected the principle of the independence of sovereign
nations and the rejection of the right of naked aggression
to acquire and annex neighbouring countries, then the world
has to be prepared to give effect to its principles.
BELL: One of the critics has been the Iraqi Ambassador, and
my apologies for not recalling his name, but am I being
pedantic if I suggest that he should be asked to go home?
PH: Not being pedantic but it's a wrong suggestion, with
respect Ron. Because you must recognise that one of the
deep concerns that I had in my mind in coming to this
S decision was the position of Australians in Iraq. We have
the position there where we are diplomatically represented
and well represented and our Ambassador there and our staff
are constantly making representations to the Iraqi
government about the welfare and safety of our citizens. It
wouldn't be conducive to our capacity to keep doing that if
we were to say of f you go.
BELL: It was rumoured last night, and what letter they were
referring to I don't know, but they were saying you had a
letter from Hussein, whether that's the President or the
King, I'm not sure.
PM: No, from the Emir of Kuwait.
BELL: Right, so everybody had it wrong then
PM: I don't
SBELL: last night, yes it was just a rumour.
PM: The letter that I've had, I mean I don't know whether
there's some reference to another one that I haven't seen
that's just come in in the last few hours or something. But
the letter I had was from the Emir of Kuwait asking us for
assistance under Section 51 of the United Nations Charter.
That section of the United Nations Charter gives the right
of collective security at the request of a member nation who
is being subjected to aggression. My advice from the
Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Foreign
Affairs, and my own reading of the situation assures me that
that gives us the Section 51 together with the request
that we've had from the Emir of Kuwait gives us legal
sanction for what we're doing.
BELL: The subject came up somewhere along the line, last
night I think when you were referring to the Budget, and
there are hard times ahead next week. Can we recover that
title of the lucky country in Australia?
PM: I hope we never again get that title. That might sound
a funny thing to say, but in many senses the title of the
lucky country was not good for us. What do I mean by that?
I mean this. There was reason, there was reason-for the
title lucky country because compared to so many other
countries we were and are extraordinarily fortunate. The
characteristics of that good fortune are these. I mean we
are a united country. We have enormous resources, natural
resources. We have a great people. We have a commitment to
the processes of parliamentary democracy. We're close to
the fastest-growing region of the world. I mean facts which
in a sense entitle you to describe yourself as lucky. But
unfortunately it also reflected the fact that it all came
too easy. If you look in the post-war period you had a
world devastated by the destruction of the Second World War
and the world was crying out for the things that we so
easily produced, our food. We got record prices and that
0 enabled us to have the economic capacity to have a massive
immigration program which enlarged and enriched our country.
We did it in those circumstances behind tariff walls which
enabled us to build up manufacturing industry. It was all
too easy. When the world prices for our grains and our meat
and our wool, when they tumbled down we then got into our
vast mineral expansion and the world wanted all those
things. It all came easy. It was lucky. And that
engendered, I think, too many assumptions on the part of us
all of employers, trade unions, politicians that it was
there for the taking. The fruit was on the tree grab it.
But you didn't really have to think about how you grew the
trees, how you created competitive industries. Now the
world has long since lost any idea that it owes Australia a
living, if it ever had that idea. We've got to understand
that we've got to work hard for it.
BELL: Just a couple of quickies. As Prime Minister you get
to go to a lot of places. Do you get to see many of those
places? Like you're in Grafton, are you disappointed you
can't spend a day or two here to have a look
PM: Yes. It looks to me lovely. May I say to the citizens
of Grafton and the region, your weather beats the hell out
of Canberra at the moment. But I had the invitation last
night for instance to come back next year for your July race
meeting, special meeting, and I'm certainly going to try and
do that. I'd like to do that.
BELL: And you're a punter, a betting man. Who will be the
next Prime Minister?
PM: Well it will be a Labor bloke.
BELL: Mr Beazley or Mr Keating?
PM: Look, I've said that Paul Keating is the fellow who I
think has got the I don't say I think who I know has got
7
the experience and the commitment. I would imagine, I would
think that that would be, whenever the time comes that I
give it away, I would believe that he would be the choice of
the Party. Paul understands, I understand, that that's a
matter for the Caucus. But that's what I think the decision
would be.
BELL: When we see you on television, when they do close-ups
of you it comes in on the face, I've often been fascinated
by the lapel badge. What is that? I often thought it was a
Rotary badge.
PM: No, it's something of which I'm very very proud. I
received that in 1979, the last full year in which I was
President of the ACTU. It's the Order of Australia at the
category of Companion. It's the Companion Order which is
the highest level of the Order of Australia other than the
Knighthood, and we don't believe in those as you know.
That was awarded to me in the period of the Fraser
government. Not by the government because the committee
which makes these decisions is at arms length from
government. They decided that what I'd done in Australia
and the Labor movement and beyond was something that
warranted that and I'm very proud of it. So I wear it
regularly. BELL: Do you have a number of them, because surely you'd be
changing suits every five minutes almost wouldn't you?
PM: I've got a spare.
BELL: You've got a spare. Mr Prime Minister, thank you for
joining us and I hope you enjoy your trip to the north
coast. We'd like to see you back here again.
PM: Thank you very much Ron. I've enjoyed it very much.
ends