PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH JOHN LAWS, RADIO 2UE,
19 NOVEMBER 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
LAWS: And we welcome the Prime Minister of Australia,
Bob Hawke good morning.
PM: Good morning John.
LAWS: How are you?
PM: Well thank you.
LAWS: Apart from the fact that you are melting in our
unairconditioned studio but we have got them working
overtime down stairs to fix it.
PM: Good on you.
LAWS: Who's gonna win the cricket?
PM: Australia.
LAWS: Easy?
PM: I don't think you should ever take any side at
Test Match level but on the evidence I think we'll win
reasonably comfortable.
LAWS: Yeah, what about the football. That's going to be
a great match.
PM: Oh wasn't that second test something.
LAWS: Unbelievable.
PM: Those second two tries.
LAWS: Fantastic. I mean that really makes you proud.
Are we going to win the third one.
PM: Yes.
LAWS: Easily.
PM: I think more comfortably than the second I would
think.
LAWS: Yeah, well I suppose we are more aware now we're
perhaps a little surprised the first time we saw them
because I don't think we thought they were as good as
they are.
PM: I think that's absolutely right. We'd won so
comfortably i~ n the lead-up matches and full marks to the
Englishmen they played good rugby.
LAWS: And they're filling the grounds up too.
PM: Yes.
LAWS: I was saying to you before we started, things got
tough at your7 place the other day with Paul Keating and
John Hewson and yourself and a whole lot of them. You
were pretty tough on the Liberals in Parliament when you
accused them of committing Australians to die in Vietnam.
You're sort of leaving yourself a bit open, aren't you?
PM: Well, I suppose there will be criticism but let's
make these points. It did happen. They totally misread
the situation. What I was trying to do, John, was to
make the point not just to go back to that in isolation
but to say what's happening now in their analysis of
foreign affairs is simply the continuation of what they
have been like in the whole of the post-war period. They
regard foreign affairs just as an extension of the
domestic battlefield. They don't look at the issues they
say, how can be take positions that are going to get
division within this country and get political advantage.
Do you remember what they said of the Labor Party at that
time? They -accused me and my party and it's leadership
of being unpatriotic, un-Australian because, why, because
we said the commitment to Vietnam was wrong. We were
vilified. Now all I was trying to do in talking about
their current positions John, where they are equally
wrong, where they misread the situation and this is part
of a long history. It's not only ill-informed but its
dangerous. LAWS: Yes, but of course you are talking about something
that happened more than twenty years ago. You could
hardly be held responsible for anything that happened
more than twenty years ago anymore than John Hewson can.
PM: The point is that what happened then happened
because of the same mistakes in analysis that they are
making now. If there was evidence, John that they had
changed and that they were capable of treating foreign
affairs in the way it should be that is dispassionately,
looking at the evidence and coming to what is the right
conclusion in terms of Australia's interests then, of
course, what you say is right. But'the way they are
treating things now is exactly the same as they did then.
They will make the same mistakes in the 90s as they did
in the 60s because they approach the matter in the same
way. LAWS: If they were in power now would we be in the Gulf?
PM: I believe so. Yes.
LAWS: So really that decision
PM: No, no, no, but that doesn't mean that on every
issue that they see things differently from us or that I
think they are wrong on every issue. I pay the
Opposition an~ d Dr Hewson tribute for the support they
have given us; on that issue. Both in regard to the
decision to commit forces, and may I say particularly, in
regard to thet support echoed most recently on the weekend
of the way we are handling the hostage situation. They
have been tot~ ally supportive. I give credit where credit
is due in pol~ itics. Where I think criticism should be
made I make it.
LAWS: We made mention of John Hewson. I see that Steve
Burrell has written an opinion piece in the Financial
Review this morning which is interesting when he talks
about the public John Hewson, he is a non-politician
above the ruck of adversarial politics, deals in personal
incentive. fie's a man, ideas and issues. When you were
riding high iLn popularity, I rather suspected you too
were seen as a non-politician. Would you agree with
that? PM: Well, in the sense that I wasn't in politics. I
was LAWS: When y~ ou first started.
PM: Oh well, yes I think that's probably true and in
some sense I hope it's still true now. As I just said,
if I see merit on the other side then I always
acknowledge it, John. I think you should in politics.
LAWS: Yes, well he is sort of seen as a non-politician.
PM: Well you are reading from the first part of the
article. What the first part of the article is saying,
this is how the perception that John Hewson is trying to
give of himself. Read the last part of the article where
Burrell says, what are the realities, and of course
LAWS: Well let's just have a look at this because I find
it interesting anyway as far as politicians collectively
are concerned, none in particular. The five interwoven
strands PM: Self-perception.
LAWS: because he owes. Well he is not saying it, I
suppose Steve Burrell is saying it, because he owes
nothing to vested interests inside or outside his party.
People looked at you in that light too when you
PM: I suppose they did to some extent, to some extent,
John. LAWS: I suppose it's all part of being a new boy which
obviously is beneficial.
PM: I don't think there is any doubt about that. Of
course in John Hewson's case, John, one of the things
that's worked to his advantage is that not only the
public but particularly the gallery in Canberra were just
sick and tired of the Howard/ Peacock hurdy gurdy round
and round and round and no change. So whoever came in
was going to get a good run.
LAWS: It was a bit refreshing. It says here that he has
had a good go from the media. Obviously all that must
come to end because he will cease to be a non-politician
because he must become a politician if he's going to be
in politics. Ultimately, I suppose he'll owe something
to somebody. Most people end up doing that and I suppose
the media will also weary.
PM: Well, as Burrell goes on to say in that article,
John, he's revealed himself, as being as he puts it,
amongst most sensitive of politicians to criticism. And
he is not beyond abusive letters and phone calls to
journalists where what they have put as criticism of
positions he takes as personal attacks. Burrell makes
the point there that this extreme sensitivity and
reaction in which he rings up and abuses journalists is
something which is going to bring the honeymoon to an
end. LAWS: Yes. Do you think he's deserved the honeymoon
0he's had?
PM: In some senses yes. In some senses, but in others
no. In the beginning, the very fact that this was a
break from the, as I say, the Howard/ Peacock hurdy gurdy
worked in his favour. I think he, at the beginning,
seemed to be prepared to take positions which were not
necessarily those of the people around him. But,
increasingly as time has gone on, and particularly under
the spotlight of Parliament, he's become progressively
weaker and taken silly positions. I mean, for instance,
what he did in the last week when he allowed himself to
be rolled in his party room in what his own colleagues
said was an incredibly weak display. That has, I think,
changed the whole setting now. He is not going to have
the respect of, even of his own people, in the way he did
before. LAWS: Prime Minister I am going to have to get somebody
to play a commercial while I have a cough.
PM: You've got trouble mate.
LAWS: You're going to have trouble answering the
questions if I am coughing over the top of them. So
we'll have a commercial, I'll have a cough.
LAWS: Sorry about that. Bad cough.
PM: Bad luck.
LAWS: I've had a big one now. Should be better for a
while anyway. Apparently Iraq was highly offended by
that stupid, or silly anyway, naval video. It's been
suggested tha~ t if Australia apologised for that it might
help our hostages. Would you concede that that's
possible and if so would you be prepared to apologise?
PM: The navy, which is a place where it should be done.
The navy has. That has been, was a full and unqualified
apology. LAWS: Do YOU think it should have been given?
PM: Well that was a judgement that the navy made. The
fact is they intended no offence. It was thoughtless in
retrospect. They understand that. But our fellows there
are not there to be offensive, and they don't intend to
be offensive to the people of that area or, most
particularly, also to the people in Australia from that
region. I merely say I will take this opportunity of
saying, that I identify myself with the naval chiefs who
have expressed their regret and I identify with that.
LAWS: Ann Fairbairn seems to think that it's important
that you apo: logise.
PM: Well the conduct of Australia's foreign affairs is
not going to come out of the mind of Ms Fairbairn.
0 LAWS: So, in other words you aren't particularly
impressed by what she says and you don't think an apology
is necessary.
PM: I've sa. id all that I think is appropriate on that.
That is that no offence was intended, that the navy has
expressed their regret, I identify with that expression
of regret.
LAWS: If youa thought it would help the hostages, would
you then apologise. I mean, even if you sort of half
didn't mean it.
PM: I don't think that in pursuing the interests of this
country you can allow a particular incident, and some
people's reaction to it, to determine the strategy that
must be followed. I repeat in this matter what I just
said a moment ago, John, I do give credit to the
Opposition and Dr Hewson on this issue, that they have
been entirely at one with us on this. You see what
you've got to remember in regard to the hostages is this,
that while all of us, including myself, deeply regret
what has happened and is happening to them and may I
say parenthetically that I had a most touching letter
from representatives of them there in Kuwait expressing
support for our approach you've got to remember that
what Saddam Hussein has done, is to take masses of these
people as hostages, and he's playing with them. He's
playing with them in an attempt to influence the world as
to how they should deal with his totally unjustified
annexation of Kuwait. If the governments at an official
level, John, responded to that game that he is playing,
then that would be precisely what he'd want. It would
help to fragment the unity of purpose that exists and
divert attention from what is the real issue and that is,
that i~ f annexation of Kuwait is totally unacceptable and
his seizure of hostages is unacceptable. I mean, he is
attempting to use them to his advantage, and we must
remember that: and conduct ourselves in that way. As I
have said in the Parliament, and I repeat to your
listeners, not a day has gone past since August, John,
when our offiLcial representatives in the area, our
diplomatic representatives, haven't been working to
secure the release and to protect the welfare of our
hostages and will continue to do that. If individuals go
there and seek to help them, well they go there
unofficially if they have success well then we welcome
that for those that are assisted but we remember the
hundreds of people, not too many Australians, the
hundreds of people who're still there and maintain
illegally and improperly and inhumanely.
LAWS: And you believe by us paying court to Saddam
Hussein we are in fact dignifying what he has done?
PM: Absolutely.
LAWS: What do you feel about the private envoys who have
gone with some success?
PM: I respect their integrity and their good intentions.
I certainly am not going to get into any slanging match
with them at all about what they are doing. But I simply
make the points that I have made to you which I repeat,
John, is the common position of all the nations involved
in forcing the United Nations sanctions. There is no
official involvement by any of the countries in these
processes. LAWS: Do you think that the private envoys are lending
credence to what Saddam Hussein is doing by making these
personal approaches and obviously being successful
because they are personal approaches?
PM: Well, they obviously welcome it. Saddam Hussein and
those around him welcome it. It is quite clear from what
they are saying that they like to be courted by a range
of people which go from people like ex-Japanese Prime
Ministers are going there and are being seen smiling and
shaking hands with him.
LAWS: It seems to ex-everybody though doesn't it?
PM: Yes, that's what I am saying. There is no nation
involved in the active endorsement of sanctions by
contribution of the multinational forces there. Not one
of those nations are officially being involved in this
process, and for the very good reasons that I have put to
you. LAWS: OK, well now Saddam Hussein has promised to start
freeing the hostages from the Gulf on Christmas Day. He
says that's going to be a gesture of goodwill. He'll do
it over a thr-ee month period. Do you believe him?
PM: What goodwill. I mean if there is goodwill he'd
release them all, now. I mean it is obviously part of a
process of trying to get some acceptance of his
unacceptable behaviour.
LAWS: Do you believe him?
PM: Well, I guess if you are going to get into the
stakes of believing Saddam Hussein you might ask the
Kuwaitis whether they believe the promises he gave that
he wasn't going to invade them.
LAWS: So you don't believe him.
PM: No, I don't necessarily believe him.
LAWS: He did warn that the freeing of his so-called
guests might not go ahead if international forces in the
Gulf continued to threaten war. So again, it's do it,
but do it my way. Isn't it?
PM: Yes, and in the end, let's wipe aside all the crap.
What are we witnessing? We are witnessing the use of
innocent human beings to justify internationally
unacceptable; behaviour. What's that behaviour, it is the
invasion and. annexation of one country by another.
LAWS: Which is unacceptable.
PM: Unacceptable and in that unacceptable behaviour he
is attemptin~ g to get some degree of acceptability by
playing with the lives of hostages. And that's not on.
LAWS: And do you think the people who have been going to
bargain for the lives of the hostages have helped to give
him that acceptability?
PM: Well, they've added to his stature and when
expressions of gratitude are given for the fact that he
has released some people. That sticks in the craw a bit.
I mean, I am not trying to say I don't have share the
sense of happiness for the families of those and the
individuals who are released. Of course you understand
that but the fact is that there are those that are being
left behind and the whole process is being used by Saddam
Hussein to give some degree of acceptability to behaviour
which is intrinsically objectionable and unacceptable.
LAWS: OK. O~ n domestic matters, we are in recession. Do
you sort of say we are in recession? I know you don't
like the word.
PM: No, look John, lets get that right. I don't want to
interrupt you but, all I've ever said, I mean, I don't
mind if you or anyone else uses the word recession. I've
got no worries about that at all. All I have ever said
is what is the professional truth that with economists
they define a recession, always have, as two successive
quarters of negative economic growth, and all I have said
is that we are not in that position. But if people wish
to use that phrase, I mean I don't lose one moments sleep
about it. I understand that people are being hurt.
LAWS: You have said that we are nowhere near as badly
of f as in the 1983 recession.
PM: Most importantly, not only have I said that, but
last week Westpac in its release said exactly the same
thing. LAWS: I think Westpac might have been seeking a bit of
self-defence. Mightn't they?
PM: No. nothing to do with their own position.
LAWS: Yes. Well I doubt that you
PM: No the statistics are quite clear.
LAWS: I mean you wouldn't find too many people that for
example in the rural sector who reckon they're better off
now then they were in 1983.
PM: No, John, I'm talking about the Australian economy
as a whole. I mean, sections of the rural economy are in
absolute crisis. There is no doubt about that. But that
is not a function, basically, of the internal economy.
It is a function of the fact I mean, you don't get what
is over a 50 per cent decline in farm income which is in
prospect this coming year over the last one as a result
of internal matters. It is just a total collapse of
world prices; in wool and wheat. But of course sections
there are very, very badly off. But as far as the
economy as a whole is concerned comparing now with
1982-83 then you had five successive quarters of
employment decline, you haven't had anything like that.
You had a wages explosion then, which you haven't got
now, you've got wages contained, so things are tough.
People are hurting. We've had to slow down the economy.
You've had me tell you. You've had Paul tell you. You
know what the; story is.
LAWS: Sure.
PM: But we wrill come out of this in a way that will mean
we won't have the absolute devastation of the economy
right across, as occurred in 82-83. That's accepted by
the breadth of economic commentators. Most recently
Westpac. LAWS: John Dawkins says that you are locked in a policy
straightjacket and you should be more flexible to help
exporters. Hlow do you answer that sort of criticism
within your own ranks?
PM: Well, let me say this. John Dawkins is not
basically questioning the thrust of the policy that we've
pursued. He seems more recently to be embracing the idea
of, perhaps to0 a greater degree of interventionism to
stimulate certain areas of economic activity. But I am
not going, I mean, John can have that discussion with
Paul and myself in the Cabinet. I think the important
thing we have got to understand the basic problem of the
Australian economy is we ' ye got to be producing more.
And it is not only for exports, John, it's for import
replacements because, again as Paul and I have spoken
with you, the basic problem confronting the Australian
economy in the last year was we had an 8 per cent
increase in expenditure and a 4 per cent increase in
production. And that's the simple statistic. You don't
need to be a professional economist to understand that
that was unsustainable, and so we had to bring the level
of activity -down so that we weren't sucking in such a
high level of imports.
LAWS: OK. WJell how do we get productivity up when, I
mean, we get a report that was issued by your Government
confirming an alarming number of rorts in the building
industry, we only got part of the report. More than
per cent of time is lost through so-called bad weather.
In one city, obviously this one, something like 40 per
cent, but in the United Kingdom and the United States it
is only 2.1 per cent compared to 40 per cent. I mean how
do you about that?
PM: There is a lot of room for improvement in the
building industry. Let me take the economic picture as a
whole. I think you've been good enough, in discussions
with me in the past, to acknowledge the enormous
restraint that has been exercised by the Australian
workforce generally in wages and also the great
improvements; that are taking place in work practices
generally. I accept that in the building industry, there
is still a lot of room for improvement and my Minister
for Industrial Relations at this stage, right, right at
this time, is engaged in serious negotiations with the
building industry to try and do more to bring about
improvements there. There is room for improvement in the
building industry. I accept that.
LAWS: Massive improvement.
PM: A significant improvement yes.
LAWS: Well how do we get that?
PM: We get that as we've got it, for instance, massive
improvement in productivity in a whole range of
industries. That's occurred because we have got
employers LAWS: Like what? What industries have we had increases
in productivity?
PM: Well let me just give you an example. Last week I
had the Economic Planning Advisory Council, in the
Cabinet Room, and the head of ICI, Michael Deeley, was
there, this is the head of ICI, and just going through in
detail the massive improvements in productivity that are
taking place in ICI, an important sector of industry.
Through the processes of restructuring that have taken
place in that industry, that is workers and the unions
are sitting down with management and totally
restructuring the way they go about things. Massive
improvement there. Just recently I've had the same
presentation with BHP, where there is massive
improvements in productivity which have been reflected
in the fact that now they are exporting an enormous
amount of steel which transformed that steel industry
from one which was going to close down to one which is
now going through a great expansion phase and
contributing very substantially to exports. But the
common factor there, John, is that you have sensible
management and responsive trade unions sitting down and
Ssaying, well the way we have done it in the past isn't
good enough. Now we need that in the building industry.
LAWS: How do you get along in the smaller industries? I
mean, you're talking about very big industries but how do
you get along when fellows ploughing their crops back
into the ground and the same crop that's being ploughed
into the ground here is being imported into the country?
How can you allow that
PM: Well you would have noticed that over the last two
or three days John Kerin has been meeting with those
industries to see whether, in fact, in the context of the
Uruguay Round, that we're in, whether anything can be
done about that. But you see, you understand what the
basic problem is there. What we've been engaged in and
for the last: few years is a massive fight in the Uruguay
Round which is going on the multilateral negotiations to
free up trade internationally in agricultural products.
We are fighting the Europeans and the Americans, although
11.
the Americans have taken a more sensible attitude.
Between them, the Europeans and the Americans are
spending about $ 200 billion a year in domestic subsidies,
export subsidies and denying market access. That's
stopping our Australian rural producers of getting fair
prices and fair access. Now it's very difficult
LAWS: Yes but we could sell them here
PM: No but wait a minute. No, no, no. You can't sell
your wheat you can't sell your wheat and wool.
LAWS: No. IL'm talking about the commodities that are
being ploughed back into the ground, that we could sell
them here, and we're importing stuff.
PM: Yes, but what I'm saying, and this is my argument.
Don't you understand it? We can't be going there into
the Uruguay Round and saying to Europe, get rid of your
barriers to our products, have free trade. You can't be
leading that fight internationally, for free trade and
agricultural products, and at the same time be putting up
barriers here. How would Australia's voice be heard
attacking the Europeans?
LAWS: Well I don't know. You put up barriers with the
motor car market
PM: Yes but we're bringing them down.
LAWS: Yes but, I mean, you propped them up for years
PM: No, our predecessors did. They propped them up for
years. LAWS: How long have you been there?
PM: We have
LAWS: You left them up.
PM: We did not. We've reduced manufacturing protection
by 30 per cent since we've been in.
LAWS: Yes but it's still there.
PM: Yes but: it's coming down. I mean
LAWS: But you give these other people no protection.
Why don't you give them some protection?
PM: No, thetre is some protection in the rural industry.
There's a small amount. But you can't let me say this,
the Nationa. Farmers' Federation, representing rural
producers in this country, accept the argument that I'm
putting. They are saying to us, you can't be going
overseas in international councils and arguing on behalf
of Australia's rural producers for reduction and removal
of barriers and subsidies in the rest of the world and be
practising it: in our industry here. Their
representatives accept the validity of that argument.
LAWS: OK. EBut what's the answer for the people here. I
mean, we import tomatoes from Italy in a tin and we sell
them for 20 per cent cheaper than we can sell the
tomatoes that we grow in this country in tin. Now how
come you allow that to happen?
PM: Well I'm simply saying, to you, that if the effected
sectors of the Australian rural industry want us to have
a two-faced position on this and say, well we'll erect
barriers here against the import of European agricultural
products and think at the same time that we can be
protecting our large agricultural producers by going into
those international forums and saying to the Europeans,
you've got to get rid of your barriers. Well I think
they'll understand it's a pretty impossible position to
Obe in. Unfortunately what we've now got to be
recognising, John, is that this Uruguay Round is coming
to its closing stages now. This is why I rang President
Bush the other night and had a long yarn to him about it.
The Europeans seem intent on sabotaging the Round and of
course if they do that, if they're not prepared to
negotiate realistically, and I'm asking George Bush to
consider, if necessary, that we'll have a Heads of
Government meeting to deal with this. But if they are
going to sabotage the Round then we're in a new ball
park. We're going to have to look at change of attitude
in a whole range of issues.
LAWS: Yes. Well it's not just in the area, excuse me,
of agriculture. It's in all sorts of areas. I was
talking to somebody the other day about an asthma
nebuliser. There's a German product available here that
sells for $ 150, we make one here that sells at $ 220 or
which isn't as good. Now how do these things come
Oabout? I mean, we can't compete, can we?
PM: Well it's interesting that you should pick that area
because in some aspects of the invention and manufacture
of medical products we're leading the world. For
instance, we now have products in the field of hearing
assistance, of pace-makers, where in fact, Australian
products, Australian manufactured products have more than
half the US market. So you can't speak generally about
this. In fact, the areas of medical instruments and
appliance production in which Australia is recognised as
leading and leading competitively in the world. So, I
mean, you just can't make I'd prefer, John, I wish
people wouldn't just talk about, you know, picking out a
black and say, look at that. I wish people would
spend a bit more time talking about the enormous
achievements where in the most competitive areas of
production Australians have shown themselves capable of
taking on and beating the rest of the world. I mean,
we've got a there's an enterprise in Adelaide that I
13.
visited a couple of years ago and in the highly
competitive area of lens, glasses, that copn's
competing in America and has got the major share of any
producer, competitor in that market and against the
toughest in the world. I mean, we can do it.
LAWS: Well I think it's very important we talk about
those things but I also think it's very important we talk
about the areas in which we don't win because there are a
lot of people suffering.
PM: Yes so do I. The big thing is that, you know,
unions and businesses, in all areas of the Australian
economy, should understand that with the right approach
Australian enterprises have shown that they can and are
taking on, are now and have been over the last few years,
taking on and beating the best in the world. We'll
never, we'll never lead the world in, and be able to
compete against the rest of the world in great mass
produced things like motor cars and so on. Although, let
me say, in brackets here, it's fascinating to see that
we're not only now exporting some cars to the United
States but we're about to export station wagons to Japan.
So we can get: niche markets like this. What I want to
see is workers and bosses understand. I'd love them all
to go into these factories, enterprises, and see where
Australian enterprise is exporting in the toughest
markets in the world and winning. We can do it. We are
doing it.
LAWS: OK. A couple of reports that we had last week
that caused some concern to people that listen to this
radio program and from all sorts of places. One from
Esperance in Western Australia, concerned about the
story, right or wrong, that one of Paul Keating's
advisers had received a salary increase of more than $ 600
a week. Is that sort of story right?
PM: I don't know what happened in Paul's office. But I
saw there was some totally misinformed newspaper article
which started off some of these things, it was in one of
the Melbourne papers. What they did, John, was to
confuse ceiliLngs for salaries that had been set with what
in fact was happening. I mean, there was some story that
in my own office people were getting particular salaries
where they were referring, actually, to ceilings that had
been set. What actually happened is that we in the
public service generally were faced, as you know, and
we've talked about this before, about the fact the
private sector was creaming off a hell of a lot of people
that were, you know, good people that we wanted to keep.
So we had to create a situation in which there was a
capacity for paying, particular people of merit, salaries
which were going to be able to keep them in there. That
was done but the actual ceilings were not necessarily
those that were paid. In the case in my own office, for
instance, my principal what he was called, Principal
Private Secretary, they're called Principal Adviser now.
The head of the office, in fact, is getting something
like 10,000 below the ceiling that was set that he could
have had and which, in fact, he's out of the public
service proper. He's been paid in my office less than
what he'd be getting if he was in his substantive
category in the public service. So there is no
extravagance in this. It was an attempt to make sure
that we could. get the services of people who otherwise
were going to be attracted out into the private sector.
It's in the interests of your listeners, and of
Australians generally, that government has available to
it talent.
LAWS: The bE! st. Yes I understand that and I accept that
but you've got to understand that those people out there
hear of somebody getting a $ 600 a week salary increase.
Another fellow, apparently, in Peter Cook's office, his
Private Secrettary, I think got a 35 per cent increase.
Now, it might be necessary to give it to him but when
everybody PM: There's a process about it. I mean, it's not just a
question of Peter Cook or I mean and I can't, I won't
accept, I'm riot saying that's not right, I simply don't
know, so I neither accept nor reject the figures you're
putting but let me remind you of the process. It wasn't
a question of Peter Cook or Paul Keating or Bob Hawke
being able to say I'm going to pay this. What we did was
to establish a process whereby if Ministers wanted to get
some increases for members of staff then it had to be
settled by a process independent of the Ministers. it
went there and it had to be finally confirmed through a
process independent in which there was recommendations,
to the Secretary of the Department of Industrial
Relations, wh.-o looked at the merits and made decisions on
the merits. You will find, as I say, cases where people
were not in : fact awarded the salary at the ceiling which
was applicable to that position.
LAWS: Yes. I understand what you are saying about
having to pay them. We probably should pay you more,
probably should pay everybody in Parliament more, but
when the rest are given guidelines and they're in trouble
if they go outside the guidelines like the pilots were in
trouble because they went drastically outside the
guidelines PM: No but you see in regard to this these processes
that we set up were established in full consultation with
the ACTU. They were consistent with the guidelines of
the Commission.
LAWS: How can 35 per cent be a guideline for one and six
per cent a guideline for the other?
PM: Because there are considerations of merit in regard
to particular individuals and that is the case in regard
to the Commission itself. You can get increases in the
Industrial Relations Commission beyond just the six per
cent nationa. wage increase if there is a case taken on
the particular merits of the case. Now you raise the
pilots. There was no question of that, there was no
question of that. They just said, we're not even going
into the Industrial Relations Commission we're having
per cent, bang, and we'll take it out of your hide.
LAWS: And of course the business executives do the same
thing. PM: Well, John, you know, again you and I have talked
about that. It's been terribly disappointing over this
recent two or7 three years when we, as you know and you've
generously conceded, workers generally have exercised
enormous restraint
LAWS: Been fantastic.
PM: Been fantastic. It's been very, very harmful, I
think, that business executives, generally speaking,
haven't exercised the same restraint. I think it's been
very disturbing. It's certainly made it harder for the
leadership of the ACTU to keep their own troops
exercising the same degree of restraint. But I make the
point in regard to the areas that you're talking about in
the public service, that all that was worked out in total
consultation with the ACTU.
LAWS: It just seems to me extraordinary that some are
asked to accept a guideline of six per cent and yet
others can get 35. Even though they might deserve it.
PM: No, but there is, within the general framework, out
there, where you've got national aggregate outcomes of
six and seven per cent, which is what we're looking at.
Even within those guidelines there are opportunities for
people in industry to take particular cases which can
lead to quite significant increases, up to 20 per cent
and so on, but they are not increases which can just be
given on the basis of saying, we have got industrial
power we're going to impose it upon you. They have to
establish that the increases that they are looking for
are consistent within the guidelines.
LAWS: Of all the Prime ministers I've known, I've known
a lot, you are by far the most people orientated. You
like people. You like to get close to people. You seem
not to mind having people around you. You've had a very
special relationship with them for a long time. Does it
hurt a lot that they've, according to the polls, and I
suppose we must accept them, turned away? Does that
hurt? PM: No it's not hurt. Obviously I'd be telling you the
biggest blowie of all time if I said, I don't worry about
this and it doesn't worry me that I'm where I am and that
I wouldn't like to be higher. Of course every
16.
politician, including Bob Hawke, would like to have as
high as possible opinion ratings but I make this point, I
will not buy popularity by pursuing policies which I know
would be against the long-term interests of Australia.
We had to bring in tough policies over this last 12
months or so to lower the level of activity. I knew,
Paul knew wit~ h me, that when we did those things that
there would be hurt. When you do those things people
don't give you ticks. They give you crosses. But if I'd
done the cheap thing and said, I'm not going to take the
tough decisions I might have sustained higher popularity
ratings for the time being but I would have been selling
those people short. My commitment to this country and my
love of this country is such that I am not going to make
decisions for7 short-term popularity reasons. They will
be made on the basis of what I believe is necessary for
the country. If that hurts me a bit in the process so be
it, John.
LAWS: How can it be that a fellow like Nick Greiner,
whom I think you have some regard for or it appeared that
you did at the last Premiers get-together, he's made some
pretty tough decisions and this is not the best place in
the world to live in at the moment, Sydney or the State
of NSW when it comes to expense, it's pretty costly.
Well he's made a lot of tough decisions and yet he's
retained popularity.
PM: Yes but you see if you look at where he was he was
down the blazers and now he's come back. Now partly that
is because people have started to look at some of the
decisions and they don't have the same immediate
emotional reaction to them as they did before. Of
course, I've got to say and as Nick would concede
himself Nick has got a lot of residual benefit from
what's happened in Victoria. I mean he concedes that
himself. LAWS: Have you been very badly hurt by what's happened
in Victoria?
PM: Oh yes, I think so. It's fairly bad. I mean a lot
of people suffered badly because of the things that
happened within Victoria. Clearly that rebounded against
Labor in that State and it's had some flow-on to us. Now
I'm not saying that in politics it doesn't flow both
ways. I'm saying my political colleagues in some of the
States will have been adversely affected by people's
perception that we're imposing some tough decisions. But
in politics it flows, you know, both ways. If you go
back to the federal election when Nick was down in this
State we were helped to some extent by that. At that
time in March Nick Greiner and his Government were down.
We got some residual pluses out of that. Now in Victoria
we were hurt: in the federal election badly. I mean if
you look at the figures, you take Victoria out, to the
rest of Australia we, federally, increased our majority.
17.
LAWS: And yet included in Victoria, which I suppose at
least they would consider important but
PM: Of course, exactly. We got hurt there.
LAWS: I mean you got more than hurt there. You got less
votes than Gough Whitlam got when he got done over by
Fraser, in fact.
PM: In Victoria? I don't know whether that's right. I
mean, I haven't looked at that. But we got hurt. Now
that's the way of it. Now all I'm saying is that we're
two and a half years basically, that sort of order of
time, from the next federal election. I just warn the
scribes, the forecasters, the doom-sayers against making
judgements in respect of 1993 in 1990. It's a sure way
of going broke.
LAWS: In all the time that you've been Prime Minister
you've been up and down, you've been higher than any
other Prime Minister now you're extraordinarily low, but
at no period did the Australian public ever say that they
wanted somebody else. For the first time they're now
saying that they want somebody else.
PM: John Hewson marginally in front as the preferred
Prime Minister, well you know, nearly eight years to get
there. Well, ok, but I just say these things; I will
continue on with my colleagues making the decisions that
are correct. The Australian economy will recover in
1991. The benefits of the decisions that we're making in
the area of micro-economic reform will increasingly show
up. We will deliver to the Australian community the most
competitive telecommunications industry I believe in the
world they are going to get very considerable benefits
from that. The reforms that we're making in the area of
rail and road we'll continue to bring very considerable
benefits for them. These aren't sexy things. As you're
sitting down there in Canberra with your head down and
your arse up in the air making the decisions. But as
those things bite and the impact comes through we'll be
getting the benefit of that. And on the other side as
you went to earlier in your program, John, in regard to
the Opposition, they've had a dream run since the
election. Dr Hewson gets up and he spits out an idea, no
details on a consumption tax. He says, oh we'll have
consumption tax. No details about it
LAWS: You would've thought that would hurt him though
but it appeared not to.
PM: It hasn't hurt too much yet because he hasn't spelt
out the details. You wait until the details start being
spelt out, when he spells out the details about that.
The flat rate tax and the abolition of the capital gains
tax. They are now in the period and in the area of
health policy as they go through into 1991 this
surrealistic: world that they've been living in until now
18.
changes and they get into the tough real hard world of
saying now, my fellow citizens, this is what is meant
when we are going to give effect to this lovely sounding
phrase, cutting $ 3 billion of public expenditure, it
sounds beaut. When they come to the first hurdle, what
is there. He goes flat on his face on an eminently
reasonable proposition and that was $ 30 million and the
issue of $ 57 million in a full year. He couldn't jump
that hurdle, but he's got to jump a whole series of
hurdles which add up to $ 3 billion. Now as they get into
that side of translating airy fairy lovely sounding
phrases into the tough realities of day to day politics
LAWS: Why is the public accepting it?
PM: Because at this stage the realities for them are the
hurt of activity being slowed down under the Hawke
Government, they don't like it terribly much and I
understand it. I'm sorry about it but it had to be done.
Against that they've just got a new leader who looks nice
and pristine and is uttering nice friendly noises. But
you go into 91, John, and you've got to spell it out
what does $ 3 billion mean, cutting $ 3 billion
expenditure? After this Government of mine has done more
cutting that has ever been done before, produced four
successive surpluses, got outlays, Commonwealth outlays
down to the lowest level since the 70s and getting back
to the level of the 50s as a proportion of gross domestic
product, and this bloke's going to magically find $ 3
billion. Where is he going to find it? In cutting in
education, cutting in roads, cutting in services to kids
and the elderly? Now once he starts translating and
making the decisions. I mean, how's a bloke going to do
that when he falls at the first hurdle?
LAWS: Why don't you debate him?
PM: Well you see, I see he's made the point that I
haven't debated him in the Parliament. As you know these
proposals that come up are called Matters of Public
Importance. Now there's never been any record, there's
never been any real history, of Prime Ministers getting
themselves involved in these debates that come after
Question Time. The Gallery, the Press Gallery just walks
out after Question Time, they don't stay for these
things. And he's saying because I don't stay for them
that I refuse to debate him. He will have his
opportunities at the appropriate times of coming up
against me and when it does I'll do him.
LAWS: You have no concern, no compunction about debating
him? PM: No, no, none at all. None whatsoever.
LAWS: OK. One final question. Just back to the
telephone system, communications that you were talking
about. Will there be timed telephone calls?
19.
PM: No we have made that clear. Under the
LAWS: There won't be any timed telephone calls in the
metropolitan area?
PM: What we have said is this; that in regard to
Telecom, in regard to Telecom, we will be laying down the
requirement on them that the untimed local calls
continue. That will be the requirement. Now the
realities are that no group setting up in competition to
them where Telecom is going to be having untimed calls
that they'll be bringing in timed calls. I mean it
follows. So the reality will be, as far as consumers are
concerned, that they are going to be faced with
significant reductions in their overall calls because
we've made it: clear that in regard to STD we expect at
least 40 per cent reduction in STD calls.
LAWS: Are you going to shrink the size of metropolitan
areas? PM: In telephone terms?
LAWS: Yes.
PM: I haven't had any indication that that's the case.
I haven't specifically talked about that with Beazley but
I haven't had any indication that that's the case.
LAWS: Yes, because a lot of people show concern in that
area. That if they don't pay for local calls what will
continue to be local? I mean, you can shrink the size of
local PM: I mean you could, you could, I mean,
theoretically reduce it to the size of a CBD. But
there's no proposition along those lines.
LAWS: OK. Thank you very much for your time. I'm sorry
about the airconditioning and the cough. It was a rough
morning. PM: As always, John, it was a pleasure to be with you.
LAWS: Look forward to seeing you again soon.
PM: Thanks.
ends