PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH PAUL LYNEHAM, 7.30
REPORT, 24 SEPTEMBER 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
LYNEHAM: What do you say to those ALP members who will
inevitably be saying tonight that by diluting the
commitment to public ownership, Labor's sold part of its
soul? PM: Well they'd be wrong. The fact is that in the
telecommunication industry we've strengthened the public
telecommunication facility. For the first time now
Australia will have a fully publicly owned
telecommunication facility operating across the whole of
the international and domestic network.
LYNEHAM: But with top to bottom competition from private
consortiums? PM: And so it should, and so it should. But as a result
of what we've done I think the publicly owned facility
will be more securely anchored, as I told the conference,
more securely anchored in the public sector than it ever
has been or could be.
LYNEHAM: There was a challenge to you today, why don't
you put this to a referendum of the rank and file. if
you did you wouldn't get it through, would you?
PM: Leadership, leadership is about leadership. If in
this world all you did was to say there are my people, I
am their leader, I must follow them, nothing would be
done. LYNEHAM: So it wasn't a shot gun conference as one of
your delegate's says?
PM: No, certainly not. Kim Beazley in fact incurred the
wrath of some of his Cabinet colleagues because he took
so long to come to the Cabinet and that was because he
was in fact conducting an unparalleled degree of
consultation within the labour movement politically and
industrially. LYNEHAM: And yet even he said today that everyone
sitting around there was a bit like amateurs trying to
tackle brain surgery and he said he was one of the
amateurs too. I mean has there been enough really
informed debate about this?
PM: In some quarters it has been very uninformed but I
don't remember any issue in the seven and a half years
I've been in Government in which so many sections of the
Party, from Cabinet Ministers right through to rank and
file, has so seriously attempted to inform themselves on
what admittedly is a very complex subject.
LYNEHAM: When you get a vote of 58 to 43 though that's
not consensus, is it? That's a split almost down the
middle. PM: Of course it's not consensus any more than the 60/ 39
was on the airlines. That's not consensus.
LYNEHAM: Is there a future danger in there for the
Party? PM: No, no. The danger for the Party would've been if
we had in fact shown ourselves incapable of facing up to
the necessity for a change. That wouldn't only have
been dangerous it would've been deadly.
LYNEHAM: But you've got two groups in the Party with
very different ideas of where this country ought to be
going PM: Well let me say this; I have never seen the Left on
an issue with its heart so much out of the debate and let
me say that at the end of the conference very many of
them came up to me and said well done.
LYNEHAM: Well done?
PM: Yes, sure.
LYNEHAM: What's the
PM: Because I mean in the sense I mean I hope it's
very clear that in none of this am I in any sense
gloating. I mean I feel the very opposite of gloating
about this issue. Where I'm very, very happy is not just
about the decision but the way in which it was conducted.
I mean really those sections of the Party that weren't at
one with us basically, however, recognise the integrity
of our position and I believe now-that the decision is
taken they will work harmoniously to see that the best
effect is given to it.
LYNEHAM: How would you describe tonight the future of
the Left in the ALP?
PM: The Left I think has always got a place in the
Party. I think some of them were upset about some of
their internal processes. But let me say this; I mean
the Left has in the earlier stages has had no more
implacable opponent I suppose than me on a number of
issues. But I pay them credit over the last few years
for having been much more constructive in their approach
to the Government and that's been reflected at the level
of their members of the Cabinet, the Ministry and the
Caucus. They have been a very, very constructive cooperative
element of Government. Now to a large extent
that's been reflected out in the Party generally on this
issue. On this issue there were some-strong feelings but
even within the Left there was a lot of very constructive
contribution on this issue.
LYNEHAM: Will you reaffirm tonight your pledge that noone
will be worse off as a result of the competition in
telecommunications? PM: Yes, I see no reason not to because what we've
indicated now that it's confirmed in the conference
that in the area of CSO, that's Community Service
Obligations, they will be adhered to. The concept of a
price protection will be adhered to by the CPI minus X
formula. Of course, the fact is that all overseas
experience shows that where you get competition in even
the threat of competition you get the reduction in
prices. LYNEHAM: And yet here we'll have foreign investors who
will have put up a lot of money and will be keen to try
to maximise their profits. I mean they're not mugs.
PM: Of course they're not mugs.
LYNEHAM: How are they going to do that while you protect
everybody as well?
PM: Because you have the impact in this industry of new
technology which is, you know, coming in at a rate which
is almost beyond description and you're going to have a
0 growth in the market. As Kim Beazley has indicated, the
experience everywhere has been when you get this
competition there is a very, very considerable growth in
the market. So it's a combination of growth and market
size, new technology and just the impact of competition
you will be able to achieve both.
LYNEHAM: Your critics say Cabinet's got a blind faith in
the virtues of competition. That it didn't work with the
banks, as many people with mortgages will tell you. it
hasn't worked in the television industry. It didn't work
with some of our more famous paper shufflers. Why should
it work now in
PM: Is the logic of that, Paul, let's take the
television industry, that the Government introduced
competition and competition has failed. You know very
well that, it's a good Dorothy Dixer for me and I thank
you for it, but you know very well that what happened in
the television industry is that some ambitious players
paid ridiculous, irrelevant prices for the assets.
Prices which were incapable, given the interest
obligations that were associated with that debt. Gave
you a situation in which profitability was impossible.
That outcome was not the result of Government decisions
it was the result of stupid entrepreneurial decisions.
LYNEHAM: But they thought it was a license to print
money. PM: They thought and they were wrong.
LYNEHAM: But why wouldn't some of these foreign
consortiums think this is a license to print money. And
then come to you whingeing later and say oh look we've
got these big debts Prime Minister we'd better put up the
price PM: Absolutely no analogy. None at all.
LYNEHAN: So if they come later and start squealing to
you and we'd better put up domestic call charges or have
timed local calls, the answer will be no?
PM: What they will be in will be a competitive situation
where they will be able, because of new technology and a
growing market they will be able, and under the
regulatory framework of AUSTEL, they will be able to both
make their investments and over time do that profitably
and in a situation which is compatible with lower prices
to consumers.
LYNEHAM: The Telecom union is still talking tonight of
industrial action. They can make it unworkable. Can't
they? PM: Some of them are. No they will not be able to make
it unworkable. Let's be quite clear about that. The
Government will govern this country. Not a
telecommunications union. I say to the telecommunication
unions quite directly these things. The interests of
those who work in the telecommunication industry were
very much in our mind in this issue. But I am not going
to have a situation where one union in the
telecommunication industry is going to say to its fellow
trade unionists in this country, it's all right for you,
if you're in the metal trades or the construction
industry or the food industry to live and operate in a
situation of competition but we uniquely are going to be
protected from competition at the cost of you our fellow
workers. So let the members who work in Telecom be quite
aware of that. The Government will govern and they will
not be given a unique position against all other workers.
Secondly, I say this, just think of the realities. As a
result of what my Party has done today in setting up a
fully publicly owned telecommunication facility operating
across the total spectrum internationally and
domestically the first time that's been done. We will
secure, I think, indefinitely into the future public
ownership of such a facility. They can make their
choice. Do they want to support a government which has
done that or facilitate the entry into government of a
group of parties which is dedicated to the total
privatisation of the telecommunication industry. Make up
their mind.
LYNEHAM: Given the fact that it's a very decentralised
industry, five or 6,000 telephone exchanges, and a highly
technical one. It won't be too hard for them to throw a
spanner in the works if they want to.
PM: I don't believe that in the end their leadership
will support or endorse that position because it would be
against their interests. I Just say this, this country
will be governed by the Government in this important area
of telecommunications. We will not be dictated to by a
union. LYNEHAM: The Democrats say
PM: Nor may I say will the rest of the trade union
movement tolerate it.
LYNEHAM: The Democrats say they'll block it in the
Senate, the Opposition we were told today would much
prefer the present situation
PM: Of course they would. Of course they would.
LYNEHAM: to the one you've arrived at tonight. So
they've got an interest to block it too.
PM: Well have they? Have they? The Opposition have got
to face up to a very real issue. They've wanted
competition. That's what it's about, they say,
competition. Now are they going to say that they are
going to block legislation which brings in competition
and which keeps a total public monopoly. It's going to
be fascinating to see.
LYNEHAM: But they'll say it doesn't go far enough.
PM: Well will they? Instead of it not going far enough
they will therefore vote to retain a situation of total
public monopoly. That's going to be fascinating.
LYNEHAM: Would you be happy to fight this as an election
issue? PM: What I want to see is the legislation passed which
will bring the best results for Australia and that's what
we'll be If the Opposition, if the Opposition want
to say that they will use their vote to reflect upon
Australia, a continuation of a total public monopoly,
I'll fight that one. I mean I'll fight them whichever
way they go. Because if they pass the legislation, which
6
they must in all principle do, and then say well we'll
fight the next election on what we think's better, I
certainly look forward to that. Because it will be a
simple question of the Labor Government saying in regard
to this critical area of telecommunications, our position
is a totally publicly owned telecommunication facility
with full private competition against which the Tories
will be arguing, no, total privatisation. I look forward
to that argument. But if they are going to also give me
the position of saying that they will keep a total public
monopoly and stop competition then we'll take them on on
that one too.
LYNEHAM: The airlines Prime Minister. Do you think
there might be more public sentiment about the airlines
given that it's sort of easier to love an airline than
something like Telecom?
PM: No. Let's be real about this. What are the
statistics? Less than ten per cent of Australians use
the airlines. No-one goes around, no politician goes
around this country more than I do, and let me tell you,
I haven't had one person come up to me and say you
mustn't sell the airlines. Why? Because the Australian
people out there are not mugs. They are not mugs. The
overwhelming majority of them don't use the airlines and
they know that it's much more sensible for Government to
use its scarce resources in doing things that the private
sector won't do.
LYNEHAM: They might if they were a bit cheaper after
deregulation. PM: But they already are. Look at the price falls that
are now occurring as a result of what my Government did.
You had all those years of Tory government and a Toryimposed
two airline policy. It was a Hawke Labor
Government which brought that to an end, brought in
deregulation and prices are diving as a result.
LYNEHAM: Wouldn't though a Government-owned Australian
Airlines still make you a player in the market, like the
Commonwealth Bank in banking?
PM: Mate, I've been in office for seven and a half years
and let me let you in to a well-kept State secret. In
seven and a half years owning Australian Airlines, not
once in seven and a half years have we been called upon
to make any decisions about the running of those
airlines. LYNEHAM: What will happen to the proceeds of the sales?
PM: The proceeds of the sales will be used to reduce
public debt interest which is to the benefit of the
country and it will be legitimate to then look at how the
reductions in public debt interest, that on-going benefit
of the reduction of the public debt, can be used for
investment in other areas of much greater value to the
Australian people.
LYNEHAM: A few quick examples.
PM: Well one area that I'm obviously interested in and
so are my colleagues is the public transport
infrastructure. I mean Australia depends for its
economic competitiveness and efficiency more than a lot
of other countries on having a very efficient public
transport infrastructure. There's a lot needs to be done
in the area of rail for instance. I think there's a good
deal of investment that ought to be considered there.
LYNEHAM: What does Labor stand for tonight,
ideologically? I mean if Ben Chifley had been in the
hall today, what would he be saying?
PM: He would've voted for us for a very simple reason
that, as I said in the debate, there's been one enduring
unchallengeable goal of the Australian Labor Party in its
nearly hundred years of existence. And that is to try
and improve the lot of the ordinary Australian. The goal
has never changed. The goal is valid today. The means
for achieving that goal obviously must change in a world
which is changing dramatically. It made sense at the end
of the war in a country which was going to be exploding
economically and in which air transport was going to be
an integrally important part of that expansion to have a
publicly owned domestic airline which would undertake
routes that a privately owned airline driven only by the
profit motive wouldn't undertake. To have it in there
setting up safety standards
LYNEHAM: Paul Keating thinks it's now the reverse, that
Ansett's the people's airline.
PM: He's saying that they are concerned more with lower
income flyers than Australian. I don't need to make that
point. I'm making the point in answer to your major
question, that in the 1940s in the immediate post-war
situation, to have a public owned domestic airline made
sense. It makes absolutely no sense now. It is an
economic nonsense. It's perversion of the use of scarce
public resources.
LYNEHAM: So a youngster comes up to you and says Mr
Hawke, I'm thinking of supporting a political party. Can
you tell me in one sentence what you stand for?
PM: I'd say I stand for the party which, young man, when
I came to office in ' 83 looked at you and the young kids
of Australia and saw one in three of you, one in three of
you, going on in education beyond the compulsory level.
As a result of the priorities of my Party and my
Government there's now two out of every three of you
going on in education. That's what I stand for young
man.