TRANSCRIPT OF UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL
SHILDBERGER, SUNDAY NATIONAL RADIO, 2 SEPTEMBER 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
SHILDBERGER: Prime Minister, thank you firstly for your
time.
PM: Michael, it's a pleasure as always to be with you.
SHILDBERGER: The problems of Papua New Guinea are
obviously causing you concern.
PM: Well just before I go to those problems, I mean I
don't know whether you were going to give me any other
peg upon which I could hang this but I understand,
Michael, this is 35 years for you now in the public arena
and in broadcasting and I just simply want to say this to
you, Michael, that while it's not the best kept State
secret that we've had a few arguments and moments I just
want to say that I think that the most important task in
this great country of ours is to get Australian people
thinking about issues, discussing issues, debating them,
not of course always having all of us thinking exactly
the same thing. But the important thing is that as a
community we value democracy, don't take it for granted
and have discussions and debate. You have for 35 years
played a very important role in performing just that
function. I congratulate you for it and I thank you for
it and I wish you well in the future.
SHILDBERGER: Oh, thank you very much for that. In fact
I'd like to come back to that because I want to do a
little reminiscing with you. But at the moment well as
we record this you're heading of f very shortly to New
Guinea and I was really wondering just how much concern
that part of the world is to you at the moment.
PM: It obviously looms significant in our thinking. For
a number of reasons. It's one of our very closest
neighbours. We're closer to it than to any other nation.
We also have a particular responsibility because of the
ex-colonial relationship and therefore we have a very
great interest in seeing that we can do what we can,
acknowledging their sovereign independence, do what we
can to put them in a position to handle what are a.
significant range of problems.
SHILDBERGER: Well there are a few. Economic is one, I
suppose Bougainville which is partly economic but
there's also another serious one.
PM: Yes, Bougainville has represented for them a very
significant source of income into their budget and their
export earnings and that is now, we hope temporarily,
lost to them. But as you say, it's not merely an
economic dimension it is a reflection of the fact that
not enough people recognise when they are talking about
Papua New Guinea and it's this; that as distinct from
most other ex-colonial entities there was no natural
ethnic or geographical qualities about that area and that
entity which made nation building easier. The new
leaders of this new nation have had to engage more than
many in the actual process of building the nation and the
concept of a nation. That has been a very real problem
and Bougainville is, in a sense, to be seen in that
light. SHILDBERGER: There are those of course who will say that
perhaps Australia should have played more of a role.
PM: There will always be some who would say that but of
course those who say it will not spell out the assumption
which is implicit in that assertion. The assumption in
that is that Papua New Guinea in some sense still is a
colonial dependency that we can tell Papua New Guinea
what to do and intrude, well that's not the case. We are
there to discuss these issues with Papua New Guinea to
the extent they want to discuss them with us, to help
them to the extent we can and it's appropriate to do so.
But the realities are, as I say, that Papua New Guinea is
a sovereign independent nation with both the wish and the
responsibility to deal with its own affairs.
SHILDBERGER: Do you think when you get there you'll be
asked for more money, maybe troops?
PM: No I don't think so.
SHILDBERGER: And you're not going there prepared for
that? PM: Well I always go prepared to listen to whatever my
hosts want to raise with me and discuss with me.
SHILDBERGER: Moving from that part of the world to the
Gulf. How worried are you?
PM: As an intelligent person I'm obviously very worried
about what's happening there. The paradox of course of
this period in which we live is that for the first time
in the post war nuclear age we have as a world the better
basis now than ever before of looking to the opportunity
of a world living at peace free from the possibility of
super power conflict. But just as we've reached that
world, that new world of opportunity, there is a
corresponding obligation on the world community to make
it clear that certain basic norms of conduct between
nations must be respected. One of those of course is
-that the naked use of aggression and attempt to subjugate
a neighbour is not acceptable and therefore when that has
happened we must be terribly concerned about that and
when you have added to that fact the horrendous practice
of using hostages as human shields against possible
targets this sort of thing must give any intelligent
person cause for concern.
SHILDBERGER: always sort of watched that particular
part of the world very closely. If in the present
scenario the best happened and Iraq chose to withdraw
again from Kuwait, it's not necessarily over though is
it? I mean what would be likely to be the US role do you
think? PM: Well the role of the United States is always a
difficult one in that region because they are wanted by
some and not by others to have a presence or an influence
and that's always difficult for a super power like that
to handle that situation in a way which is generally
acceptable. But
SHILDBERGER: Do you think it would be likely that they'd
stay?
PM: Not in any sense in the presence they've got now. I
think one should say this in regard to a possible
withdrawal and I think Saddam Hussein should understand
this that if he withdraws as he must I mean there are
certain things that are non-negotiable, that is he must
withdraw from Iraq and he must release all hostages.
Those things are not negotiable
SHILDBERGER: From Kuwait.
PM: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait and he must release
all hostages. That is not negotiable. Now, I think he
should understand that if he does those things, then if
he believes, if he believes that he's got some legitimate
grievance, territorial or otherwise, against Kuwait, then
there should a facilitation of them to have those matters
considered by the International Court of Justice. There
are peaceful norms and peaceful machinery which enable
disputes between nations to be considered.
SHILDBERGER: Right. From that, let's get to the economy
of this country. Ken Davidson of The Age says that Paul
Keating in his deregulation, are responsible for many of
our economic problems like in Victoria and the state of
some of our financial institutions. What's your comment
about that?
PM: Well as you know, neither I nor Paul regard Ken
Davidson as an objective observer on the situation in
Victoria or as far as this Government is concerned. I
mean, Ken Davidson I don't want to get into a
personalised you know, attack on him but I think it is
a matter of record, as Ken himself would agree, that
historically he's been essentially a-supporter of what
was the Keynesean type approach of the Victorian
Government in earlier years of which we are now seeing an
unacceptable outfall. Now having had that position in
the past, I don't think it's likely that Ken is going to
be a thoroughly objective observer of the present.
SHILDBERGER: Well put his views aside for the moment.
What about deregulation in general? Have we perhaps gone
too quickly?
PM: Paul Keating made the obvious answer to this point,
Michael, when he said it was not deregulation which has
caused the problems in Victoria. It was the absence of
proper supervision. As Paul said in the banking sector
where there is appropriate supervision by the Reserve
S Bank, then there hasn't been these failures. The
supervision of State Banks and State non-bank financial
institutions is the responsibility of State Governments.
SHILDBERGER: Was your virtual lack of support for John
Cain, do you think, the final straw?
PM: No I don't think that's fair to say the lack of
support. I made the observation which was appropriate
and that is that the matter of State leadership is a
matter for the States. I said that in Western Australia.
I said it in Victoria. I didn't regard it as appropriate
for me to say John must stay, John must go. It was a
matter for decision by the State and within the State and
in the end John made the decision himself.
SHILDBERGER: Now the Budget indicates that demand can
still afford to slow before any sort of reverse action
needs to be taken. Are you concerned perhaps that the
S figures are too slow before they get to you, that you
might sort of act too late?
PM: You've always got to be careful in this but let me
make this point about it, Michael. We don't simply rely
on the official statistics those of the Statistician
which can have that lagged affect to which you properly
refer. These things are happening. The people in my own
Department, the people in Treasury are constantly in
contact with the business community, having their finger
on the pulse of what's happening. Let me say this, that
when I became Prime Minister in 1983 I said then that
and, you know, we were in the depth of the worst
recession in 50 years at that time and I said to my
people I'm not going to wait just on the official
statistics to get some feel of when the economy's on the
move. I think it's a reasonably well known fact that Sir
Peter Abeles is a friend of mine, I've never tried to
disguise that. Now he heads up the biggest transport
company in this country. I asked Peter when I came to
power just to let me know what was happening in his area
of transport because transport in any country, and in a
sense particularly in this country, is a very good
indicator of what's happening to the economy and I can
say that those indications came through ahead of the
official statistics. So I'm simply making the point that
SHILDBERGER: Are you still keeping that sort of contact
and asking those sort of questions?
PM: Yes and not simply there but I mean I make the point
that the bureaucrats in the Treasury and in the Prime
Minister's Department, the Department of John Button's
Department of Industry and Commerce, they are constantly
in contact with the wide range of leaders in the business
community. So we're not just the captive of the lagged
official statistics.
SHILDBERGER: Many businesses are going broke now though
aren't they?
PM: Yes and many businesses are not. I mean and I
don't mean to sound heartless in making that comment.
Yes, the fact is that we had in this country an
unacceptably high level of activity which was sucking in
a level of imports which we simply could not sustain. So
therefore there had to be tight monetary policies, there
had to be tight fiscal policies and tight wages policies.
Now when you tighten the arms of policy it is inevitable
that some businesses are going to collapse.
SHILDBERGER: If you're watching regularly as obviously
you are can you finger a time or can you think towards
a time now that you're going to say right now we ' ye got
to change policy of putting budgets aside or
PM: That assumes that we haven't. The fact is that in
this year, 1990, we have on 4 occasions eased monetary
policy. We've eased it by 4 points, by 4 percentage
points. So during 1990 we have not sat on our hands. We
have successfully eased policy. Now our position will be
that we will continue to monitor what happens and at that
point where we think there can be a further easing and
only when we think it can be done we'll do it again.
SHILDBERGER: Right. Now looking at the economic
problems as well and that is the ACTU hit-list at the
moment. Do you support what Martin Ferguson is doing,
that he's going out to employers because he says they
haven't been doing the right thing?
PM: I answer that question by these prefatory remarks.
The trade union movement of this country has exhibited an
unparalleled degree of restraint over the period of this
Government which has meant that non-farm real unit labour
costs have fallen by 10-1/ 2 percentage points, which has
been associated with a massive move from wages to
profits, which has allowed historically high levels of
investment. That only happened because of the enormous
restraint which has been exercised by the trade union
movement. I can-understand, against that historical
background, the concern that the trade union leadership
must have about what appears to be the lack of
recognition by sections of the business community of the
enormity of that restraint. The problems it's created
for the ACTU leadership within its own ranks and also may
I say that this restraint, this enormous restraint which
has been exercised by the trade union movement has not
been reflected in the behaviour of the executives of the
business community who, while the trade union movement
have been exercising massive restraint involving a
massive move from wages to profits, business executives
have engaged and indulged in a massive increase in their
personal remuneration. That of itself has created
enormous problems. So I am not surprised that there is a
degree of frustration. The next point I make is
important as the previous one but it's important in
regard to the national economic outcomes that the ACTU
remains committed to the undertaking they have given of a
7% aggregate national wages outcome during this financial
year, and that is the important consideration.
SHILDBERGER: Is it right in saying it won't go before
the Industrial Relations Commission?
PM: Well at this stage that seems to be their attitude.
That's something that they have to work out. As far as
the Government is concerned, our fundamental concern is
that they keep their commitment of acting in a way which
means a no more than 7% national wages aggregate outcome.
SHILDBERGER: Would you prefer them to go before the
Commission? PM: I, by nature, tend to prefer to have these things
settled in a more consensual way. I mean that's my
nature. I can't emphasise enough the important thing for
the community is that the trade union movement adheres to
that commitment about a 7% no more than 7% aggregate
outcome. SHILDBERGER: But do you support therefore the ACTU and
Martin Ferguson who says that the employers haven't been
doing the right thing?
PM: I've already said that I think that the employers
have been less than totally responsible, sections of them
have been less than totally responsible in terms of
understanding just what the trade union movement has done
over recent years.
SHILDBERGER: Right. Let's get onto a bit of reminiscing
briefly. As you kindly referred to the fact it's
years when I started as a copy boy at the Melbourne Sun.
What were you doing in 1955?
PM: 1955 I was at the University of Oxford enjoying one
of the most pleasurable periods of my life.
SHILDBERGER: Now you spent a bit of time in New Guinea,
where you are now returning
PM: Yes.
SHILDBERGER: And I gather a little bird told me this
that that's where you really got the interest in punting?
PM: Yes it is. Before then I not only had no interest
in the horses I had a positive detestation of racing
because, as you know, I'm a sports fanatic and I used to
find it upsetting in the extreme that I'd be listening to
the cricket or the football and they'd say now we go to
the races and there would be this monstrous interruption.
But I had when I went up there I was sort of acting as
the barrister, as it were, leading the case in this local
officers case which took me all over Papua New Guinea and
I had as my junior, as it were, Paul Munro, who is now on
the Industrial Relations Commission, I might say. Paul
and I very quickly developed a close personal
relationship but it used to break down come Friday when
he immersed himself in the mainland papers, the racing
section and getting his bets on for Saturday. Now one
day I was going over to see now I must be careful here
I can't name names because it would be obvious but I
was going to see a newspaper person who, if I could put
it gently, supplemented his income by sort of running a
book, as it were, a particular sort of book. Paul had
made an investment, I remember it was the Newcastle Cup
that was coming up. I was going over to see this fellow
about the case and I wanted to put some facts to him that
I'd hoped would get sympathetically reported. So Paul
said to me oh look, he said, I've put this money I want
to change my investment. Would you do that for me? He
had to write it down because I didn't know what he was
talking about really. I said yes I'll do that. So I
went over and saw this person and I said give me a look
at it. Have you got a form guide there? And the fellow
said yes, and knowing absolutely nothing about it I had a
look through it and with infinitely more luck than good
management or insight I picked out one and said well I'll
have a certain amount on it. Well needless to say as the
story unfolds, my beginners luck paid off. I was hooked.
So it started.
SHILDBERGER: I believe there might have been the odd
glass of alcohol to be consumed at the time too.
PM: Yes in those days, when forced, I reluctantly had a
drop or two, yes. There was some associated with this
pleasurable past time.
SHILDBERGER: I've got to say something else here though.
I mean I did get to know the Bob Hawke of yester-year
pretty well.
PM: Yes.
SHILDBERGER: He's changed now though, hasn't he?
PM: Well he'd be a bloody fool if he hadn't.
SHILDBERGER: Well he's changed because of the grog, OK.
PM: But not only because of the grog. I mean an
intelligent person must change through life. I mean if
you want a sign of stupidity, show me a man at 60 who's
the same as he was at
SHILDBERGER: Is there more to the Bob Hawke now though
where he's become in perception as much as anything and
perhaps more aggressive, perhaps even more rude?
PM: That I've become more aggressive now? Oh, that's
impossible. No, I'm just a shadow of the aggression of
yester-year.
SHILDBERGER: The fuse isn't a bit shorter?
PM: Oh no, it's lengthened to the point almost of nonrecognition.
SHILDBERGER: There are rumours that you're back on the
grog. Is there any truth?
PM: Gee, you'd want to be careful on that one. I will
retire in very considerable opulence. There is not a
skerrick of truth and if you could produce any evidence
of anyone saying that, please let well you say there
are rumours.
SHILDBERGER: Oh yes, just people sort of speculate,
that's all. I've got no evidence at all.
PM: No, what I'm saying is I'd be indebted if you would
indicate to me any person that said it. I mean I hope
this is not just something you've conjured up. I mean if
you say this you've obviously heard someone say it.
SHILDBERGER: Yes.
PM: You have?
SHILDBERGER: But with absolutely no evidence.
PM: No, no, no.
SHILDBERGER: Pure speculation.
PM: No, no. But I would be indebted if you would at
some time convey to me anyone who said that that's
happened-SHI LDBERGER: Right.
PM: Because I will take them to the bloody cleaners.
SHILDBERGER: Good. Good to hear it. Your emotions.
You laugh, you cry
PM: Sure I do.
SHILDBERGER: Do you regret any of that?
PM: No. I'm made the way I am. One of the most futile
things I've witnessed in life is people saying I wished I
was like that or I wished I ' Was like something else or I
wish I wasn't like this. You are what you are. What you
ought to do is to try and maximise what you've got. The
most futile thing in life is to spend time trying to
concern yourself about things you can't change. I have a
particular make-up. At times it would've been obviously
less embarrassing for me if I wasn't made the way I am.
But if I've got to sit down and do a balance sheet of my
make-up I think I'll settle for what I've got.
SHILDBERGER: How long do you give yourself after the
next election before you step aside?
PM: I don't know. I haven't really thought about that.
My commitment is to go to the next election.
SHILDBERGER: Have you decided what you'll do when you
step aside?
PM: I've thought about it and I've publicly said it.
One of the things I really want to do is to do a series
of interviews with people that I've had the great good
fortune to meet over the years in this job. I have been
enlarged and enriched as a human being through meeting a
number of these people. But not only have I been
enlarged and enriched personally but I think in various
ways they've had a significant influence on things that
have happened in the world and I would like the
opportunity of doing a series of interviews with these
people and I imagine that a lot of people would be
interested in that experience. There has been some
evidence that people in the television industry think
it's a good idea so I would like to do that at some
stage. SHILDBERGER: A couple of quick ones. How do you regard
John Hewson as an opponent?
PM: I like to conduct my political affairs as far as I
can in a way which doesn't involve an attack on the
personality of my opponent. I like to deal with the
issues and I must say that one of the things about John
Hewson that worries me is that he looks as though he's
falling between two stools, that he is a Professor of
Economics and he has the capacities that ought to go with
that experience. But in the way he's dealing in his
analysis of matters economic, he looks as though he's
come to the conclusion that he's got to almost be a
gutter brawler, see what sort of level of abuse he can
get to in regard to Keating. Now the fact is that he's
not constitutionally made for that sort of role and I
think he's going to fall between two stools there. Not
being the analyst and there is room for that and
attempting to be the tough sort of brawler type, he's not
equipped for that. So if he continues doing that I
mean he's having understandably a honeymoon run now. It
was inevitable whoever followed at the end of the Howard-
Peacock merry-go-round saga, whoever came after was going
to be well received and he is being well received now. I
recognise that. But in the months and the years ahead
he's going to have to be judged in the light of how he
does conduct his analysis, how he gives possible
alternatives and my assessment at this stage is that he's
not shaping up well in that respect.
SHILDBERGER: Just finally, how's Paul Keating's
Collingwood going to go in the finals?
PM: Well I've got a lot of, you know, sympathy for
Collingwood. It's one of the great sporting clubs of
Australia. Standing off objectively, I'd have to say
that Hawthorn if I were having a bet now, let's put it
that way you'd have to say that the form that they are
exhibiting at the moment, including that demolition of
Collingwood, is, you know, points to them. Let me put it
this way, one of those on my staff, who shall remain
nameless and who has black and white eyes, has put it
this way; that he just hopes that Hawthorn gets knocked
off by one of the other finalists on the way through as
Hawthorn's the only one that he's worried about.
SHILDBERGER: Interesting. Bob Hawke, Prime Minister,
thank you very much for your time.
PM: Thanks Michael, it's been a pleasure.
ends
r