PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH PAUL LYNEHAM, 7.30 REPORT
22 AUGUST 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
LYNEHAM: Prime Minister, thanks for joining us.
PM: Pleasure Paul.
LYNEHAM: There seems to be a fairly wide-spread sense of
anti-climax about the Budget. Did the Government overdo
the pre-Budget hype, do you think, about how tough it was
going to be?
PM: I don't think so Paul. If you look at the reaction
today, in one sense we must have got it right because
half the people are saying we've been too tough and the
other half are saying we haven't been tough enough. But
there's a fair chance we might have got it about right.
LYNEHAM: Right or wrong there is a perception that the
absence of statements on telecommunications and the
government airlines diminished in some way the stature of
this budget creating the impression that you're all
running out of steam. Should you have got cracking
earlier on these issues and pushed harder on them?
PM: We couldn't have pushed harder than we have in the
area of micro-economic reform. I mean you know Paul,
you're a careful watcher of the political scene, and you
know that there hasn't been any answer from the
conservatives or from any commentators to my challenge
which I put at the end of last year and during the
election campaign. The challenge was simple. I said,
you point to any period in the history of this country
where a government has undertaken such a massive and
quick program of micro-economic reform.
LYNEHAM: ( inaudible)
PM: It's absolutely right. But we were honest Paul
about two areas that could not be dealt with in the
Budget. That is telecommunications and the airlines, the
** possible disposition of the airlines or dilution of
public ownership. That required consideration by the
conference of my Party.
LYNEHAM: What do you think of the idea of using
privatisation revenue specifically for public
infrastructure like rail, road and public housing?
PM: What you've got to there's enormous merit in that
concept what you've got to understand is the essential
source which you can use and the people talking to
understand this, is the savings interest that you'd
get from the disposition of public assets.. Because
that's the real continuing saving.
LYNEHAM: You use it to retire debt. interest you
save then goes into
PM: That is so. I mean, you save and that's a
continuing saving. That's the sense which people should
understand. This is not a one-off benefit. That saving
** is a continuing saving and if you're going to have,
as I put it Paul, a sound financial platform from which
to undertake new and necessary expenditure, that's the
way it should be looked at.
LYNEHAN: What do you think of the idea of some form of
trust fund for this money, to make sure it is committed
in that way?
PM: I'm quite prepared to discuss this issue, but I
think that the Party, we've learnt to understand one
another. We have our debates, I think, robustly, but
directly and in a way where people can trust one another.
I mean if the commitments were given that these proceeds
would be used in this way, I think people would
understand and accept that. But it may be that that
concept is, you know, a way of doing it.
LYNEHAM: It is current at the moment
PM: It's been talked about, yes.
LYNEHAN: The Budget extends the network of computer
matching, with tax file numbers linked to more clients of
Social Security, Veterans Affairs, students and so
on. As you guard against fraud, don't you run the risk
of creating another sort of problem that smacks a bit of
big brother?
PM: I don't think so Paul. Let me make this point, or a
number of points which are relevant to a very appropriate
question. Firstly we have had and will continue to have
discussions with the Privacy Commissioner about this
because we understand that in meeting the objective of
matching the revenue and outlays information in regard to
clients of the paying agencies, that we must also ensure
that we respect privacy. So there has been continuing
discussions and there will continue to be discussion with
the Privacy Commissioner. The second point to make is
this, that what we're doing here is doing in a new
technological form what has been done manually to this
point. I mean there is this manual checking that goes on
and this is taking advantage of the most recent
technology for the benefit of the Australian people so
that they won't be paying
LYNEHAM: But the Commissioner recently was fairly
underwhelmed with the performance of some Government
departments in their internal security of this sort of
information. What
PM: Well I mean we've always got to be on our guard and
we will always listen to what the Privacy Commissioner
has got to say. We will develop this technique which is
there to protect the Australian public from fraud. We
will ensure at all times that we have the involvement of
the Privacy Commissioner. Let me say this, that there
will be no centralised data bank created out of this
process. LYNEHAM: What's wrong with pensioners keeping their
money in low interest accounts or indeed doing anything
else they like with it?
PM: Well there are these things which are silly about
it. Firstly it means that they are, those who need less
to do it, are most subsidising the banks. It is crazy
that the banks take the money and they're entitled to
it, I mean I'm not saying they're acting illegally, but
they take the money, millions and millions of dollars
from the elderly to put it in their three or four per
cent and then the banks say thank you very very much then
lend it out at 18%. That's good for the banks but it's
not very good for the people concerned.
LYNEHAM: But even if you keep your money under the
mattress now it's now deemed to have earned 10% interest.
PM: In regard to the first $ 2000 there's a cut-off there
because we recognise that people will want to have some
ready availability for what they see is immediate needs.
But over and above that there will deeming. But let me
make this point. We understand that this may be
confusing and worrying for our elderly citizens so we're
going to put more money into the Social Security area to
provide financial counselling for old people. I think we
have that obligation.
LYNEHAM: How will you know who's got money under the
mattress though?
PM: Well we're going to give people an opportunity,
there's going to be this amnesty period where people can,
I mean if they haven't been, you know, if they've been
getting a benefit when they shouldn't have been, the
amnesty will enable them to come clean so that there's a
clean start. That will encourage people I think. They
will understand, because there is look, I haven't spent
seven and a half years as Prime Minister doing more for
pensioners than has ever been done before, for the first
time to get the pension as a proportion of average weekly
earnings over 25% to take pensions, as they totally will
be by 1995, out of the tax system. I haven't done all
these things to start hurting pensioners now.
LYNEHAM: The Middle East. Are you disappointed that the
five permanent members of the Security Council are still
not able to agree on any UN endorsement of the
multinational blockade force?
PM: There's a hiatus in the process, as I understand it,
when they were considering it that it was related
particularly to the possible berthing of an Iraq ship in
Yemen and Yemen gave an undertaking that they wouldn't
accept the ship. So there was an adjournment of the
proceedings. We've recently, in the last 24 hours or so,
had the meeting of the Western European Union countries
who have stiffened up their resolve in this area. I
think wherever you look around the world now, I mean
interestingly, including Libya, you've seen Gadaffi
standing off now from Iraq in a way that he hasn't done
before. I mean any rational assessment by Suddam Hussein
and those around him must lead to the conclusion
increasingly Paul that the best interests of their people
are served now by withdrawing from Kuwait.
LYNEHAM: The detailed rules of engagement of our
vessels, once they are worked out, they'll be kept
secret? PM: Yes of course. What will be done is that they in
fact are conveyed now, as they are to our naval forces
that are going there, they'll operate under those on the
way. And if there are changes as a result of any further
discussions they'll be conveyed to them. But of course
they are not made public.
0 LYNEHAM: But if there's any major change in the role of
the vessels will the public be told?
PM: Obviously, I've made it clear that if there's any
change in the role I've given these undertakings. That I
would consult within the Party, I would consult with the
Leader of the Opposition, and there would be a decision
by Cabinet. Now even if I wanted to keep those things
secret, I mean I think I'd find it fairly difficult
But of course I would want to make it publicly known if
there were any change in those circumstances.
LYNEHAM: Exercise Swift Eagle in North Queensland,
they're practising a rescue of Australian hostages. I
assume the timing of that is entirely co-incidental?
PM: Yes.
LYNEHAM: Would you ever contemplate trying to do it for
real?
PM: I think it would be totally unrealistic to imagine
that Australia in the circumstances in question could do
that. LYNEHAM: Is there any other option in this regard to the
Australian hostages but to concede that we are
regrettably, virtually powerless in this situation and
that we've just got to try and wait for a resolution of
the crisis?
PM: Not just wait for a resolution, we've got to try and
work for a resolution of the crisis. But in the terms of
direct rescue, in fact you put it correctly, that the
right thing that we've got to do, and this is why I have
sent Gareth Evans of f today he's going to Europe, he'll
be going to Cairo, he'll be going to New York and
Washington. Australia as is usual in these sorts of
circumstances will be right there in the forefront,
working hard to try and get a peaceful and diplomatic
resolution of this tragic situation.
LYNEHAM: Does he have a specific brief, any detailed
plans? PM: Well my instructions to him were to see as many
people as he could of significance and to exercise
whatever influence he could to strengthen the resolve of
people to try if possible to get aid and even full United
Nations cover and to make it clear, as I've said, that
Australia is not an enemy of the Iraqi people and that
Australia would be at the forefront if the Iraqi
leadership withdraws. We would be at the forefront of
trying to restore a situation of normal and constructive
relations. LYNEHAM: There have been reports that Australian
resident Edith Puckeridge of Adelaide has been rounded up
by the Iraqis in Baghdad. Have you any more information
on that?
PM: All I know is that the woman in question Mrs
Puckeridge to whom you refer, who travels on a British
passport but is a long term Australian resident, and
therefore we accept a certain responsibility, is one
included amongst a number of foreigners who have been
take from their hotel. We're not sure where they've been
taken. LYNEHAM: Let me just repeat a question I asked when we
last spoke. If Saddam Hussein starts to harm the
Australian hostages, would that give you any second
thoughts about our ships?
PM: No. It can't do. That's a hard answer but it's a
direct answer. The principles that are involved here are
fundamental if the world is going to be able to live in a
civilised relationship, nation with nation and people
4 6
with people. No one regrets more profoundly than I do
that Saddam Hussein has resorted to these terroristic,
uncivilised codes of behaviour. I deeply hope that, if
not Suddam Hussein, that those around him will come to
understand that their interests of their people are being
ill served, that the Iraqi people in one way or another
can only suffer grievously from a continuation of the
occupation of Kuwait. I still being I suppose Paul by
nature an optimist hope and tend to believe that sense
will prevail. I hope it does.
LYNEHAM: You've been portrayed in this crisis by some as
President Bush's lap dog. Analogies have been drawn with
Vietnam and all the way with LBJ.
PM: Let me make some points about that. I'm glad you
asked the question. It is an absurdity, it's an insult
which I reject completely, I repudiate it. Let me make
these points. My consideration of this issue started
well before the conversation with President Bush. There
had been discussions at the diplomatic level and at the
armed forces level. The discussion with George Bush was
not the initiation. It was the end of a process. I
could have announced it twenty four hours before perhaps.
But it seemed to me appropriate that I should have that
discussion. So I reject completely the absurdity of that
observation. I know you're not making it but you are
right some have made it. It is a nonsense with no
foundation. Could I just make one other point Paul
because your question was a very important one but you
went back to an earlier age, you talked about Vietnam.
Let me make this point and I hope that your viewers will
understand the significance of this point. You can't
look at this crisis through the spectacles of the sixties
or seventies because in that period the possession of a
long range missile capacity to deliver weapons of mass
destruction were the exclusive preserve of the super
powers. But now a nation like Iraq with a population of
about the same as Australia and with a GDP significantly
less than Australia has such weapons.
LYNEHAM: So it's a different ball game?
PM: It's a different ball game entirely.
LYNEHAM: Prime Minister thanks for your time.
PM: Its been my pleasure Paul, thank you.
ends