PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, SEAGULLS FOOTBALL CLUB, TWEED
HEADS -17 AUGUST 1990
E OE -PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Sir, does your use of the biography of Mr
Churchill imply that you're an admirer of Mr Churchill?
PM: Not unqualifiedly, but in regard to that period he was
outstanding. He unflinchingly and against great odium that
was directed against him, tried to warn not only his own
country but the world about the follies of appeasement and
the price that would be paid. I obviously would have lots
of disagreements about aspects of Mr Churchill's career but
on that issue he was supreme.
JOURNALIST: Without crystal ball gazing, how do you think
your supporters will judge you in the light of your
decisions in a few weeks time?
PM: History will tell that. But I've never as Prime
Minister taken the view that I should make decisions on the
basis of how I'll be judged. If you think a thing is right
then you've got to do it.
JOURNALIST: The reaction to your current decisions as
you're moving around, from the public?
PM: Overwhelmingly supportive. There's been the odd
protest expressed. I guess that's as it should be in a
democracy. I mean that's what we believe in, what we're
trying to defend.
JOURNALIST: How do you feel about Mr Whitlam criticising
you Sir?
PM: I've already said something about that. I've made the
observation that Gough seems to be going into a period of
gratuitous advice as I put it. That's fair enough because I
think Prime Ministers have generally found it a little bit
difficult to retire and stay out of things. I probably may
have some of the same difficulty myself when the time comes
down the track. But I think the best comment about this
recent period of Gough came from one of his own previous
staffers, as I've just said recently, who rang up my office
when Gough was proffering advice on how to run the economy.
As he put it, he said having Gough advising you on how to
run the economy was something like Nero giving advice on ( 1 9
firefighting services. As I said, I think Gough would have
been proud of that line himself.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, regarding the crisis in the Middle
East at this stage, we've heard that a number of overseas
hostages have been gathered together in Kuwait. Do you know
if the Australians are part of that gathering together?
PM: I spoke to my office this morning and at that stage
they believed not.
JOURNALIST: Has there been any further advice throughout
the day or is that
PM: No, I have not received any further advice. I think I
would have if that had been the case.
JOURNALIST: Sir at this stage do you see any parallels with
Vietnam? PM: None at all.
JOURNALIST: Do you support Senator Richardson's views on
the ICAC, or can you give us your views?
PM: Those are the views that have been expressed by Senator
Richardson. He speaks for himself on this issue. It's not
a Government position.
JOURNALIST: And what about your views?
PM: I have no views for public expression on that point.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, if we could touch on some local
issues.
PM: Yes of course you can.
JOURNALIST: About unemployment in the area. Do you have
any specific plans to curb this problem?
PM: I was asked a similar question this morning and what I
said was this. You have to, in regard to the presence
situation, put that in the context of Australia's recent
experience. When we came to office in ' 83, unemployment was
at dreadfully high and unacceptable levels. We have pursued
economic policies to stimulate growth and the success of
that is to be measured by the fact that the rate of
employment growth in Australia under my period of Government
has been twice as fast as the rest of the world. Now we're
proud of that. We reached a point though however a year ago
when this fact had emerged, that Australia's consumption had
increased by eight per cent, consumption broadly defined,
and our production only increased by four per cent. In
other words that gap was taken up by imports. We couldn't
responsibly as a nation keep going like that. So we've had
to slow the level of activity down in the economy for those
external reasons, reasons of external balance. And
inevitably that has meant, with a slowing of rate of growth,
some slowing in the rate of employment growth and some
slight increasing in unemployment. Now that has been
deliberate, it's been necessary in the interests of the
country. So I want to say that with the success we've had
in achieving that slowdown I'm looking to a situation where
the economy will begin to grow again, or significantly in
next year. Of course those are the sorts of general
measures you've got to take. obviously in Australia there
are going to be areas which will have different employment
and unemployment experiences. It is the case that in this
region there has been somewhat higher levels of unemployment
than elsewhere. Now we don't generally intend to take
measures for specific areas to deal with them. However let
me say this, that since I've been here there have been a
number of issues raised with me which I'm going to look at.
I'm going back with a swag of submissions from various
people. I give the undertaking that all of those will be
examined closely. If there are any things out of that which
are capable of being done within this general framework I'm
talking about we'll do them. But I don't want to mislead
the people in this area and say well look, we've got a
specific employment generation program for it. But we'll do
what we can.
JOURNALIST: Will there be any special initiatives for small
business at all.
PM: Well in regard to small business you'll see some
initiatives in the Budget. The most important thing is that
now the Minister for Small Business is David Beddall who as
you know last year chaired the committee of review of small
businesses. We have made a specific reference to the
Industry Commission to look at the capital requirements of
business and small business in particular. So there are a
range of things that are being done to look at this issue
but by and large of course what small business needs to
prosper is an economy which is not blowing out. We've
stopped that. As we move to a position where there can be
further reductions in interest rates, as there will be in
the future, then that will be to the benefit of small
business.
JOURNALIST: Talking of interest rates, when do you expect
interest rates to come down again?
PM: It's a good try mate. But all I can say to you are two
things. One that in this year, as you know, there have been
two reductions in interest rates. Those haven't been fully
reflected, that's in prime rates, as a result of Government
policy. Those haven't been fully reflected right through
the structure of interest rates and it is the case that the
business community generally is paying something of a price
through the banking sector's attempt to cover the losses
that they have incurred through perhaps injudicious spending
policies in the past. We will move at the time that we
think it's appropriate towards a further reduction of rates
and we will not delay that one day longer than is necessary.
But we won't bring it in a day before we think we can do so
responsibly. So the prospect is for reduction but I'm not
putting a time on it.
JOURNALIST: Sir, home owners have seen one half a per cent
reduction. Can you hold any more hope out to them?
PM: Yes. The future is for a reduction I believe. But I
repeat what I said. I'm not saying that's tomorrow or the
day after because neither home owners nor small business nor
anyone else would benefit from a premature reduction of
interest rates and a premature resurgence of unsustainable
levels of activity.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on another subject. The premature
leaking of the debate on the telecommunications plan to the
media. What's your reaction to that?
PM: Oh, it's something we would've been better of f without.
Of course I don't welcome it but it was not a terribly wellkept
state secret that there are some differences of opinion
within my Ministry about this. I've had discussions with
the two Ministers particularly concerned. I believe that by
the time the Government has to formulate a position and go
to the Conference with it that we'll have an agreed
position. The important thing to understand is this. While
there are some differences of view within my Party, there is
an agreement between the two Ministers concerned and others
that we've got to have competition in this area. But we've
got to have competition within a situation where there is
going to be a publicly owned and operated telecommunications
facility. That's what the important issue is in politics in
this country because that distinguishes my Party and my
Government from the Opposition. Because we've seen this
incredible position now where Brown, the spokesman for the
opposition, has come out and said that they'll sell Telecom.
In other words, what they are offering the people of
Australia is a situation where the vital telecommunications
industry will be totally in private hands. That is a recipe
for disaster for this country. And however we sort it out,
and we will, it will be in a framework where there will be a
publicly owned telecommunication facility. And the
retention of such a publicly owned telecommunication
facility is essential if you're going to protect the
interests of this country.
JOURNALIST: Would transport come under the same sort of
category as telecommunications?
PM: Well not the same sort of category, but let me say what
I see as the relevant considerations in transport. As I've
said before, political parties, trade unions, employers,
governments have got to understand that we live now in the
most rapidly changing time in human history. None of us can
afford just to keep the assumptions and the attitudes of the
past. There may have been shibboleths, sacred cows before
which we've worshipped and so on and it may have been
appropriate to do that. But we've got to now be prepared to
ask ourselves what are the right priorities. Now in the
area of transport, I think the overwhelming need for this
country now is for a program which will deliver an
integrated rail, road, freight system. It's unintegrated at
the moment. There are vast diseconomies which occur because
of the lack of integration. What my ambition is and
intention is to see that we can as a national government put
capital resources into rectifying that situation and to do
it in co-operation with the States. But you've got to have
the capital platform from which to do that and I believe
that one way of providing that capital platform is to
question whether in terms of relative priorities it makes
sense for a government to have resources sunk in running
airlines. There is a relationship between your capacity to
do things in the area of transport which are crying out to
be done and whether that's not sensible to look at freeing
up some resources in other areas. That's the discussion in
part which has been sensibly and I think without great
passion being conducted within my Party. I welcome that
discussion but I think we'll come out with a sensible
outcome. JOURNALIST: Have you decided to lead your Party to the next
election? PM: I had decided and announced that a long time ago mate.
You know that.
JOURNALIST: Senator Jim McKiernan has put out a statement
today on behalf of the Left
PM: Senator?
PM: Jim McKiernan from Western Australia has put out a
statement calling for assurances that Australia's
involvement in the Gulf will remain strictly passive. Are
you going to be able to give those assurances or be willing
to give them?
PM: I've spoken on that. I just repeat again our position.
The decision we've made has been on the basis of our own
consideration and in discussion with others, including the
United States, and it is accepted as a sensible use of
limited Australian forces. I have said that there is a
considerable period of time now, some 18-19 days before the
ships will reach that area. In that period we'll use that
time to have discussions with others. If, and I've just
said this conditionally, if it appears that there is a case
for any broadening of the Australian involvement then that
is a matter which would be discussed within the Government.
It's not something on which I would unilaterally make a
decision But I don't expect that that will be necessary
and indeed, as I said at lunch, my great hope, my great hope
is that in that period of the best part of three weeks that
events will have developed in a way which will render any
further presence unnecessary.
JOURNALIST: Are you more concerned for the fate of
Australians there now that the Britains have been ordered
PM: It's always been a great concern of mine the fate of
the Australians in Iraq and Kuwait. We have just constantly
through our own diplomatic representatives and where we
haven't got a diplomatic representative, as in Kuwait,
through other diplomatic representatives to try and ensure
the greatest degree of protection we can for Australian
citizens.
JOURNALIST: If the war does break out would you rule out
the use of Australian troops on the ground?
PM: I don't answer hypothetical questions. You know that.
I just believe that good sense is going to prevail. We
haven't directed our mind to that. Neither has anyone else
asked us to direct it. We have no such request from anyone.
JOURNALIST: With the interceptions now going ahead in the
Gulf, is there a fear how Iraq may react to that?
PM: The general observation I made in the past is relevant
to that question in that if you were dealing with a person
who appeared to make decisions on rational grounds you would
conclude that what you must say now is that the best
interests of Iraq are served by withdrawing from Kuwait.
Now if that was purely rational consideration
applied. Now unfortunately when you look at the record it
seems that not entirely rational considerations do apply.
So it's very difficult to try and project an answer to what
may happen. I just hope that it will become clear that
fortunately the world is saying to Iraq we are not going to
tolerate this sort of action. It must be coming clearer
with each passing day that that's the case and that the
occupation and purported annexation of Kuwait is not
acceptable for the rest of the world. I hope, I mean the
logic of that situation will prevail in the mind of Saddam
Hussein. JOURNALIST: At the best totally unpredictable at the
moment. PM: Yes well, no intelligent person looking at the record
could predict with certainty. When you make predictions in
regard to any situation it's on the basis of being able to
say well we know what the criteria are that the person is
going to follow, what rational sort of decisions.
Unfortunately when you're dealing with a record of
irrationality predictions become a bit more difficult.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, if we could just talk about rail
transport again. Mr Newell has called for motor rail and
rail services to be restored in the region. Is the
chance of that happening likely to occur?
PM: Well I don't want to be misleading on that. I respond
to that by saying that I believe there is an urgent
A 7
necessity for getting a national rail-road system in place
which is going to be rational and effective. Now I intend
to have discussions with the States about this issue. How
that particular service would fit into that I just can't say
at this stage. But I can understand the concerns that have
been expressed by Mr Newell but I can't make a promise about
that. I think it will a part of an overall consideration.
What's important for the nation is that we get a better and
more integrated system than we've had in the past.
JOURNALIST: In your speech you spoke about Japanese
investment, or overseas investment
PM: I didn't mention Japan as I recall.
JOURNALIST: overseas investment in manufacturing and in
services. Do you feel that investment in land and property
is covered in that same
PM: I think, I mean you can't say to the rest of the world,
at least I don't think you can rationally say to the rest of
the world look we want your investment in our country for
this purpose but we won't have it for another. I mean they
are likely to say well I won't put it in the vernacular
but they could express rather rudely what you could do with
your country. So I think what involved, we've got to
say yes we are part of the world community and we welcome
investment not only in manufacturing and services but in
land. But the qualifications that I expressed exist. I
mean we just have to be intelligent without being stupidly
jingoistic, acknowledge that any country has a right to get
a balance between foreign investment and a natural desire
for a national automony in economic matters. When you say
that, that means that on certain investments you'll get what
may be a quite legitimate difference of view as to whether
you're coming down on the right side. But my overwhelming
point is that we must, as a matter of principle, welcome
foreign investment. The worst thing that we could do in
this country for the future of our kids would be to create
the impression generally, and you mentioned Japan in
particular, or with Japan, that people are not welcome here
and their money is not welcome here. Because the realities
are that Japan for instance is our major trading partner.
As far as we can see into the future they're going to remain
a massively important trading partner. If we are going to
see our future, as it inevitably will be enmeshed in Asia,
which is the most dynamic and fastest growing region of the
world, then it's important that Asia sees us as a country
which wants to be part of the development of the region.
Now that's necessary for the benefit of our kids and future
generations. So that's the way we've got to see it and the
way we've got to handle it.
JOURNALIST: What would you see as an appropriate degree of
overseas ownership in a privatised Qantas or Australian
Airlines?
8
PM: I would very firmly have the view that in such a
situation the majority ownership and control should be in
Australian hands. I mean that's the major issue. Then just
where the minority level was held well I'd have some
flexibility about that. But my point is that ownership
control, majority ownership control must remain in
Australian hands.
JOURNALIST: On Australian Airlines, one more if I may. If
Australian Airlines is sold off to private interests, would
you prevent Sir Peter Abeles from coming in to buy it?
PM: Not only would I prevent that I'm glad on this final
question that that question has been raised. Because I
notice that some informed people, including one ex-Minister
of mine, has uttered the absurdity that what Hawke's about
is selling off to Sir Peter Abeles. If I wanted to help Sir
Peter Abeles in regard to the airlines, the best thing I
could do would be do kill off the privatisation debate.
That's the best thing that could happen for Sir Peter
Abeles. You leave an Australian national airline starved of
funds and just gradually being privatised by market share
with Abeles getting more of the market. The worst thing for
Sir Peter Abeles, I would think, would be a reinvigorated
Australian national airline providing him more competition
with greater access to more capital from the private sector.
That's the biggest challenge for Sir Peter. Under no plan
that I have would Ansett be able to acquire any interest in
Australian national Airlines.
ends