PM Transcripts

TRANSCRIPT OF NE~ WS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA, 11
DECEMBER 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Did you put Mr Keating on notice at all,
Mr Hawke, at yesterday's talks? If he transgresses again will
you move against him?
PM: No, I didn't put him on notice.
JOURNALIST: Don't you think that that would have been a good
idea? PM: Not necessary.
JOURNALIST: Why not?
PM: Because I believe what Mr Keating has said to me. He
believes what I've said to him and I have the clear view now,
as a result of what was a fairly lengthy conversation, that
what has been I think the most effective political partnership
in post-war politics will continue in the period ahead to be
effective. JOURNALIST: Who do you think was the guilty party, the media
or Mr Keating?
PM: I'm not concerned with allocating guilt. I accept what
Paul said to me that he was under very considerable emotional
strain as a result of the sudden death of not only his
colleague and adviser but friend, Chris Higgins. He was under
a strain imposed by that event. I accept that.
JOURNALIST: There was harm. You said so in the statement
last night.
PM: Sure.
JOURNALIST: Now where did most of that harm fall?
PM: Well I think basically on the Government because I'm
always concerned if there is harm to the Government I move
quickly to try arnd isolate that, limit it. I think I've done
that. JOURNALIST: Do -you think the Government is looking a bit
ragged just nine months after you won the election
PM: No I don't think it's looking ragged. There is, I mean
I'm not stupid and saying that this hasn't had an adverse

impact. It would've, but I think not a lasting one. We've
had the capacity to sit down as two intelligent and committed
individuals and discuss the issues directly and I think with a
great degree of frankness. We'll go about our business now of
conducting the, as far as Paul's concerned, particularly the
economic policy, he and I together there and as far as the
Government more generally is concerned I, with my other
colleagues, doing those things which are necessary to meet the
challenges confronting this country. I believe that there is
a very clear distinction which is apparent and will become
increasingly apparent as we go through the life of this
Parliament between the precision and the relevance that we
have to offer in policy terms and as we described it in that
brief statement regressive, irrelevant prescriptions of the
Opposition. In the end, as you know you've heard me now year
after year after year and many of you with varying degrees of
reluctance have heard me say it, and reluctance to accept the
accuracy of what: I've said but it's remained true and it
remains true now, that in the end the Australian people are
going to make decisions on the basis of who has got the best
capacity to govern them, to look after their economic
interests. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that when we
go to the next election the judgement will be, as it should
be, that whatever qualifications the people will have had
about some of the things we have done that in terms of
relevant and competent economic management Labor under Hawke
has got the best answers.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Calm down.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, there is concern that if you go
to the next election saying that you will step down some time
in the next term that you will appear as a lame duck candidate
PM: Well under pressure from
JOURNALIST: that you will harm Labor's chances
PM: Ok, I've got your question. I'm a little bit surprised
that it was asked actually. Under pressure from various of my
colleagues, which has built up over some time now and
particularly since I made that statement, I have revisited the
issue, if I may put it that way, and I now make it clear that
I will lead the ' Party to the next election and with the
intention of going through that term while I retain the
keenness towards the job and the fitness for it that I do now.
That's what my colleagues feel should be the case. I'm
persuaded by them and that is a statement of my position.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Just calm down. There's plenty of time.
JOURNALIST: Is t: hat an absolute commitment or are you giving
some qualification there and secondly
PM: No. It's an absolute commitment we'll take the second
in a moment it's an absolute commitment that I will lead the

Party into the next election with the intention of leading the
Party through the whole of that term.
JOURNALIST: Did you tell Mr Keating and what was his
response? PM: Mr Keating is aware of my position and I don't intend to
go into all the details of our conversation. But Mr Keating
is aware of that position.
JOURNALIST: Did you that with him yesterday?
PM: Mr Keating is aware of my position.
JOURNALIST: did he accept it?
PM: I think he accepts it, yes. There was no indication that
he doesn't.
JOURNALIST: Did he give you any indication that he might
leave? PM: No. The understanding that I have is that Mr Keating
intends to stay.
JOURNALIST: But you would not lead the Party to election
number six, you'd stay up to the point of that election? Is
that PM: Well, I meana, a lot of people have had sort of
intimations of mortality over recent times and, I mean, one
can't go on forever and ever. But my intention would be to go
the whole of the next term and well let's see the position
then. JOURNALIST: Two more elections.
PM: I am saying that, and I don't think it's a very
complicated answer that I've given, I mean we really are
getting to the navel gazing stage. Let me repeat it; I will
lead the Party to the next election with the intention of
leading them through the whole of that next period. Now
that's a fair period of time. I'm giving my commitment you
see for now some five years. Now by any reasonable
expectation that's all I need to give at this stage. I don't
intend to say anything more about that.
JOURNALIST: Is iLt reasonable, Mr Hawke, to expect Mr Keating
to postpone his own leadership ambitions for that period of
time? PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, is Mr Keating still your preferred
successor when you do step down?
PM: As I've said before the decision is for the Caucus to
take but yes, as far as I'm concerned, I think he's best
equipped to follow me.

JOURNALIST: In your talks with Mr Keating yesterday did he
retract a single word of what he said on Friday night?
PM: Yes there was a lot of retraction of things that had been
conveyed. I'm not going through all of those. He was very
spontaneous, and early in the piece, with his apology and I
accepted it. I think you know me now after a pretty long
period in public life I'm not, as distinct from some other
people, one who carries bitternesses because I regard
bitterness and jealousy as a most corrosive element in life,
in personal and public life. I've always had that belief and
I adhere to it now. I appreciated the fact that Paul
understood the hurt and the damage that had been caused and he
apologised unreservedly and I accepted it.
JOURNALIST: So, in fact, he did apologise for what he said.
Did he accept the responsibility
PM: He accepted responsibility, yes, that's quite clear. I
mean, really you are trying to
JOURNALIST: I don't think it is, Mr Hawke
PM: It is to me. I would've thought that the language is
quite straightforward. I've given the positive answer to the
questions twice already.
JOURNALIST: Mr H~ awke, three and a half hours is rather a long
time just to say sorry.
PM: Well who said, I mean, with respect to you that's an
absurd observation and you, by the grin on your face know that
it was an absurd proposition. I mean, we didn't spend the
time only with thie making of an apology and an acceptance of
it. We had a lot of things to talk about.
JOURNALIST: Was there any discussion, Mr Hawke, of a change
__ of portfolio at all for Mr Keating either now or sometime in
Wthe future leading up to that transition to leadership?
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: remain as Treasurer for the five years
PM: My position is this; that I said after the last election
I offered Paul would he like to do something else and this
is not something new I'm saying, you know I've said that
before. And he -took the view that he wanted to keep the
Treasurership, a position and the view which I not only
understood but appreciated and gladly accepted. My position
would be that if at any stage Paul believed that he would
prefer to have another portfolio then he would have that
right. I mean, -the position of the Deputy Prime Minister is
that they should have their choice of portfolio. They don't
automatically, and I'm talking now historically, automatically
get what they would nominate but they do have the right to
nominate the portfolio they would like. And as far as Paul's
concerned I believe he has that right, not only as Deputy
Prime Minister but given the period of time that he's served.
If he should make the judgement that he would prefer to have
another portfolio experience then, of course, I would

accommodate him. But, I mean, please don't beat that up, I
mean, it was not an issue of discussion.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said I think only two weeks ago to
Howard Sattler that you wouldn't like to fight two more
elections. Can you explain exactly why you've had this change
of heart?
PM: Well I've had put to me by a range of people within the
Parliamentary Party and outside it that that's not
satisfactory for, the reason, they want me to be there
longer than that: and that they would think that that would
be a politically somewhat difficult position or one that could
be exploited so it's said by some that people wouldn't
know who they were voting for after me at that election. So
on the basis tha~ t I feel remarkably fit physically, mentally
alert and as keE. n on the job as I've ever been I have
responded to tho'se observations. Those are the reasons.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Just a minute, calm down.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you expressed the view that
people might vot~ e for you and not for Keating.
PM: Well by some people that was put. I mean, it would
obviously be absurd for me to deny that some people didn't say
that, some were saying that. But it was not just that point.
They were saying; well if you go into an election and say yes
but I'm going in the middle well they're not quite sure what's
going to happen after that, they want to vote for you and they
want to know that that's what they're voting for for that
period. I understand that's a reasonable point of view. I've
responded to it.
O cJlOoUsReNrAL ItSoT : t he Mrn exHta wkeel, e ctdio onyo uw haatl sow ouulndd ebret akien ttoh e ebveasltuate
interests of the Labor Party electorally? Your staying or
going? PM: Well that's always open to anyone, not just me. My
assessment, if I may say so modestly, is both now and I'm sure
it would be at that time, that the Labor Party's best chances
of re-election are with myself as leader.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, did you indicate to Mr Keating prior to
his speech on Friday night your change in thinking on this
matter or did you tell him yesterday?
PM: In regard to going on? No I hadn't specifically had a
conversation with him about that.
JOURNALIST: So yesterday was the first time he knew of your
changed view on that matter?
PM: I would think that would be so. Yes.
JOURNALIST: In -your talks with Mr Keating yesterday did he
convey any suggestion that he might leave politics this term?

PM: No. I have two constraints on talking about this.
as you know, I don't want to go into all the details of a
personal conversation, there was a great deal covered. I
think it's fair to say no, that the overwhelming conviction he
left me with is that he would want to stay on this term.
JOURNALIST: But did he leave this open though? Did he leave
this open?
PM: No he hasn't really left it open. His answer to me is
that he would stay the term.
JOURNALIST: If M1r Keating hadn't apologised would you have
sacked him?
PM: That's a real hypothetical, isn't it?
. expJeOcUtR NALIST: What about next term Mr Keating. Do you
him stay next term?
PM: I would think so.
JOURNALIST: Has he indicated that?
PM: Well there's no we didn't go into that period. I mean,
the immediately relevant position, as far as he was concerned,
was this term and I understand he'll stay this term.
JOURNALIST: He must've been a bit surprised by your change of
heart from only two weeks ago. Surely he had a response.
PM: Well I have nothing on which to base an assessment about
the period after that other than to say it's my hope that he
hope and my expectation that he would.
JOURNALIST: Did Mr Keating tell you that he'd like to see you
stand down as Prime Minister this term?
O PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Did you in fact tell the Treasurer yesterday
about your plan 1to stay on or did he learn about this today?
PM: It would've been evident from the conversation that we
were having yestE-rday.
JOURNALIST: Was the Treasurer wise to make that speech even
on an off the record basis?
PM: Well he was I don't think it's a question of wisdom. I
don't want to go into it other than to say I accept what he
said to me, David, that he was in a state of considerable
personal stress as a result of the sudden death of Chris
Higgins. I think that that's a relevant consideration and I
don't want to say anything more than that because, as I say, I
accept without qu~ estion the apology that he tendered to me.
JOURNALIST: would've been as evident to Mr Keating
yesterday Did you say to him explicitly that you're
intending to stay the full fifth term?

PM: Well what I indicated was that I intended to go into the,
take the Party into the next election and that there was
reference to the! uncertainty that there would be, if you know
I wasn't standing there for the whole of that period and there
was reference tc that. I have no doubt that he would have
understood. That's why I've answered the question the way I
did. There wasn.' t a specific question and answer but I have
no doubt from th~ e nature of the discussion as a whole he would
have understood that.
JOURNALIST: In 1983 in an interview with David Frost you said
you'd only stay three terms and when he asked why I think your
reply was that after three terms your capacity for
effectiveness in the job was substantially diminished. Why do
you think now?
PM: Well I've been there now. I know the playing field. I
feel better equipped to be Prime Minister now than I was then
because I've learnt more about my own country, more about my
own people, and I certainly know more about the international
environment within which we're operating. In physical terms I
feel as well as better basically than I've ever felt.
Intellectually and mentally I feel as alert as ever. So for
all those reasons I think it is appropriate that I continue to
be available.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, who were these people who came to you
about going right through the fifth term?
PM: I'm not responding to that.
JOURNALIST: Why did they come now, in the last few days?
PM: Well a) I'm not saying who the people were and I don't
think you
JOURNALI1ST: ( inaudible)
PM: There was a range of people but
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Just a minute. There were a range of people inside the
Parliamentary Party and outside it. The question basically
developed a momentum because of what I'd said before about
standing down after the next election, during the period of
it. And all these people were, as I say, kind enough to put
two reasons for me as to why that shouldn't be my position.
JOURNALIST: Just a whole lot of separate people who suddenly
PM: A whole lot of separate people Michelle.
JOURNALIST: Can you at that dinner on Friday night would
have had the view that Mr Keating's Do you accept that
this issue is goiLng to dog you for the next few years despite
the statement that came out yesterday?
PM: No.

JOURNALIST: Why?
PM: Because not to accept that involves either or both
accusing Mr Keat~ ing of lying and myself of excessive naivety.
If you want to do either or both of those things, do it.
JOURNALIST: Just coming back to that range of discussions
that you had wit~ h various people, given the sorts of comments
and declarations; you've made in the past, how much persuasion
have?
PM: Not a great: deal.
JOURNALIST: Wil. l you speak at next year's Gallery dinner?
PM: I didn't hear that, just a minute.
JOURNALIST: Do you accept that when your Deputy leader has
such naked ambitions that it's very difficult for a leader to
sustain his position?
PM: No, I don't. Paul, as I say, has over a fairly
considerable period of time not disguised his ambition that he
would like one day to be Prime Minister. That's a perfectly
legitimate ambition. One I have held myself at times in the
past. I, as I say, I repeat what I put a moment ago. I
accept what he's put to me now, and I believe the Party will
and it will be seen to be operative in fact. What was your
question? JOURNALIST: Seeing whether you'll be the guest next year at
the Gallery dinner.
PM: If it's off the record.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you say that you expect a
recovery to begin in 1991, on the Could you expect to
O see a recovery in the major opinion polls of yourself and of
your Party?
PM: I'm not sure. I noticed in one this morning. They said
the Party's up somewhat. It will improve during 1991. I mean
I don't know which months or which poll.
JOURNALIST: completely different. The NSW Government
says it will consider a NSW bid for the Year 2000 Olympics
if they can get $ 125 million in interim funding from the
Federal Government. I gather you've discussed this with Mr
PM: I had a yarn with him yesterday.
JOURNALIST: So what's your
PM: He's going to write me a letter about it and I said I'd
consider it when I got the letter.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I don't want to say anything more about it than this. My
basic answer is I told Nick Greiner that I'd look at his
letter, that we would want to be helpful. He indicated that

they needed upfront money. If they weren't successful
they would be prepared to repay to the Commonwealth so that it
wouldn't be a sort of pig in the poke sort of situation if I
could put it tha~ t way. I said alright let's have a look at
it. He's going to write to me and I'll consider that with my
colleagues. JOURNALIST: Do you accept Mr Keating's general point, and I
think he put it generally, not last Friday night, but that
it's much more difficult than for a Prime Minister to be
popular, to be up in the opinion polls?
PM: You will have seen me say when I've been frequently
speaking in defence of Paul that Treasurers by and large do
have a difficult job of attracting popularity. It is
reasonably difficult for a Treasurer. I've said that before.
JOURNALIST: Well, given that, how can the transition be
O satisfactorily arranged whenever it is going to be? Aren't
you always going to have this difficulty?
PM: It may be. It just depends I mean, if you know that
distant period down the track when this issue may arise the
economy was booming along nicely and interest rates were low,
employment in good shape, well obviously the assessment of the
Treasurer would be better in those circumstances than it is
now I would think.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke what did you think when you heard that
Mr Keating had said that Australia had never had a great
leader and it showed?
PM: I didn't like it. Either in terms of its value as an
historical analysis or in terms of its present relevance. Now
I addressed both those issues in my discussion with Paul and
indicated that I thought his historical analysis when he was
saying what he said on Monday morning, what he said to me he
O was really talking about the pre-83 period. I said well I
think your analysis is wrong. He won't mind me saying here in
terms of our conversation that I said that his analysis in
respect of Curtin was in my judgement grossly inadequate.
JOURNALIST: Did he accept that?
PM: I think it's fair to say that he accepted that his
observations had done less than justice to Curtin. He made it
quite clear to me that in his statements about leadership in
Australia he had been referring to the period prior to this
Government. So that's my answer in respect of the two
elements of this question. The period which he said he was
talking about in regard to the present.
JOURNALIST: But Mr Hawke, he obviously thought this out. Why
would he suddenly change his mind in an hour's conversation,
three hours' conversation on his view of John Curtin?
PM: For the very simple reason that I persuaded him. I mean
I can persuade pe ople. I know it's very difficult for me to
persuade you. I'ye come to that conclusion. But it's not
difficult for me to persuade other people. I put the case
which is overwhel~ ming. Let me briefly put it to you as I put

it to Mr Keating as to why I thought that analysis in regard
to John Curtin was inadequate. I made a number of points. He
came to office in probably Australia's darkest hour and
committed himself and gave his life to saving the country.
But as I said to Paul, he wasn't overwhelmed and absolutely
dominated by the task currently in hand. He in fact set up at
that very time the apparatus to make sure that the Australia
that he was fighting to save and for which he gave his life,
that that Australia in the post-war period was going to be a
better and different Australia than those darkest hours of
war. He set up the apparatus of the post-war reconstruction
with people of the quality of Nugget Coombes to start planning
then for a better and different Australia. As I put to Paul,
that sort of concept, inspiration, decision-making and
achievement in my judgement ranked at least with Roosevelt.
JOURNALIST: You said all that?
O PM: Yes, well we did have three hours yesterday. I mean you
find it difficult to believe that in three hours I could say
that. I mean I can, and I did and I also made the point, I
said Paul I remind you of a previous conversation that we've
had, and this is a conversation I had some time before. I
said it's worth reading and I recommend it to you people
it's worth reading the Parliamentary Debates here, the
Commonwealth Hansards at the time of the Premiers' plan, about
1930. Six years before the general theory. Read Curtin's
speeches then. Curtin was light years ahead of his
contemporaries in understanding the nature of the economic
challenge and the appropriateness of certain policies and the
profound inappropriateness of others. I'd recommended to Paul
that he should read those debates. In the discussion I had
yesterday I asked him whether he had and he hadn't. I said
well it's a good idea to do it. I mean, my commitment to John
Curtin is well known. I mean I say I don't have heroes, I
don't accept the word hero. But I do have the most profound
admiration for him and it is one which in a sense is both
emotional and cerebral. I also said to Paul it was not only
in terms of those issues that I've already talked about but
look at the courage he had in facing up to his own Party and
to himself on the question of conscription. Massive task that
he had to understand and he did it under very considerable
difficulties. Profoundly important as far as the welfare of
his country is concerned. He did it. He also was prepared to
take on the historical challenge if you like of saying that as
far as the future welfare of Australia is concerned it was not
now the imperial relationship, it was the relationship with
the United States. He gave expression to that. He inspired
people to accept the relevance of that. And forged a
remarkable relationship with Macarthur. Now I'm simply saying
when you take those range of considerations together to refer
to Curtin as just a trier, as I pointed out to Paul, was
grossly inadequate.
JOURNALIST: As Prime Minister Mr Hawke, do you think it's
right to say that this has done damage to the Government, that
this particular incident originating last Friday night has
damaged the Government and secondly can you tolerate another
similar such incident which reveals Mr Keating's of you?

PM: The incident did damage but there is permanent damage and
there is lasting damage. I don't think it's done permanent
damage. It did some temporary damage. In regard to the
second question I have no reason to believe there will be any
repetition. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said you hope and expect that Mr
Keating will be there after the next election but is there a
possibility that; he might leave at the next election?
PM: I guess there's a possibility but I don't expect it.
JOURNALIST: Going back to the leadership. You mentioned that
you weren't happy about Mr Keating's comments and you
mentioned both historically and present terms
PM: Yes but that was before I had spoken to him yesterday.
He assured me that he was talking in an historical context.
He wasn't talking about the present. He repeated to me what
he'd said before to me personally and what he said publicly,
that he regarded me as the most serious Prime Minister in the
post-war period. But he emphasised to me that he'd been
talking in as I say an historical context. I accept that.
JOURNALIST: What about his line about walking around shopping
malls tripping over television chords. Isn't that a direct
reference to you?
PM: He said not;. But he had not intended it as a direct
reference but he understood that it was unfortunate, it could
be taken that way and he apologised for it.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said it could be difficult to
repair the view that after these last few days to put across
that you're a close team and get over..
PM: I don't thi~ nk it will be hard to put across we're a close
team because I don't think that one speech of one night can or
will be seen to undo the fact of seven and a half years of
close working relationship. I doubt if any serious political
commentator disputes the proposition that the Hawke-Keating
Prime Minister-Treasurer relationship has been the closest and
most effective t~ hat anyone can remember. We've had our low
points and we've both talked about those publicly. They've
been rare. We see the economic picture in very similar terms.
Not always identical, not always exactly the same emphasis.
We work very closely and effectively together. I don't think
one night's going to undo that.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, your office last night described you as
being hurt by what Mr Keating said. How long will it take you
to recover from that hurt
PM: I'm totally recovered.
JOURNALIST: and put your personal relationship with Mr
Keating back on an even keel?
PM: I think it's back there. I was hurt. I mean I'm human.
Until I'd heard what Paul had to say not only an explanation
of what he said but the circumstances in which he'd said it

12.
until I'd heard that I was hurt. But I said, I accept without
qualification what he said to me.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on a different subject. How do you
feel about foreign interests buying some or all of the Fairfax
PM: I was wondering when we'd get to that. Well let me say
this; I would prefer that the ownership of the Fairfax
interest was in Australian hands. That would be my preference
and I don't think we should dismiss the possibility of that
happening. If some proposal were made which involves some
degree of foreign ownership then obviously we'd be prepared to
look at that. It would be stupid to say we wouldn't look at
it. But my clear preference is for Australian ownership. If
such a proposal involving any degree of foreign ownership
would be involved, I think the sort of concepts that I see
from this morning's Press were advanced by The Age staff group
seem to me to be relevant.
JOURNALIST: Well what limit would the Government allow on
foreign ownership on the Fairfax..
PM: Well as I've said I would prefer it to be Australian
owned. The sort of general
JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: Well wait a minute. Just a minute. You are very
impatient. The Foreign Investment Review Board has tended to
talk in general principle terms about 15%. There is nothing
binding about that. I'm not being cute or devious in the
answer I've given I never am on any answer but on this
important one I'm not. I really am saying what I believe that
I would prefer that you could get Australian ownership, saying
that if some proposal is put up which would involve some
degree of foreign ownership and prima facie it seemed to have
merit then we'd -examine it. In saying that I am not saying
0 well I'd do that if it involved 5% and not 10%. I mean the
concept is what I'm putting. I hope that Australian ownership
would in fact be what emerged.
JOURNALIST: Are you ruling out majority ownership?
PM: Majority what?
JOURNALIST: Foreign ownership.
PM: I wouldn't favour majority foreign ownership.
JOURNALIST: What about say 40-45%?
PM: Well read the answer I've given, please. I mean I've
given the answer three or four times. I mean, can I say it
again in the hopea that it will be understood? Very simple,
very straight forward, I would prefer Australian ownership.
if some proposal were put up which involved the degree of
foreign ownership, we would look at it. I've said I
haven't that particular idea around 101% or any other
percentage. Now I think that's pretty clear, straight
forward.

JOURNALIST: The notion of control, Prime Minister, though
clearly control can reside with something less than majority
ownership? PM: It can and we would not favour control outside of
Australia. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what's your reaction to the Maxwell bid
for 49% of the West Australian?
PM: Well we've indicated previously in regard to another bid
by that gentleman, we didn't favour it. I would want to see
the details of this bid. Prima facie, not very keen.
JOURNALIST: Back to the Treasurer. Did the
PM: Oh yes. Fairfax, Paul, Fairfax, Paul, yes.
JOURNALIST: Did. the Treasurer' s remarks themselves on Friday
night, have an influence on your decision to stay on longer?
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Would you tell us when you made that decision
then, Prime Minister, to stay on
PM: Relatively recently. But I mean I was interested in
the range of people that had spoken to me about it.
JOURNALIST: Was it triggered by the Howard Sattler interview?
PM: Was it triggered? With all due respects to my dear
friend, Howard, I can't recall
JOURNALIST: Well that's when you made the commitment that you
O would be fighting the next election then stepping down
PM: Well that was the trigger point, if you like, of the
approaches I got from a range of people. Yes, that's true.
JOURNALIST: Is the US Administration and/ or others of the
allied contingent in the Gulf totally satisfied with
Australia's level of contribution?
PM: As I understand it, yes. I've had no indication other
than that. Let me say our decision was not shaped in terms of
will this be acceptable to the United States or anyone else.
It was shaped in terms of you remember the three adjectives
I used that I said it was significant, I said it was
proportional and I said it was practical. I believe that what
we have committed and decided meets those relevant criteria
and it was those criteria which shaped our decision. Having
said that, I have no reason to believe that that decision is
other than acceptable, not only to the United States but
others, and so it should be. If you look at the measure of
our commitment compared with many others, there's no way that
anyone can look askance at Australia.

14.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, is there not a danger that the
Australian people will think that you've done a secret deal
with Mr Keating and in fact you're not going to serve through
the next term?
PM: In life and in politics you will never be believed by
everyone, including may I say, may I dare say it, including
some people in this particularly cynical group. You'll never
be believed. You'll always harbour in your mind some doubt
that we've got a hidden agenda. Well let me look you straight
in your eyes and say believe me, Amanda, believe me. Because
it's JOURNALIST: You'll have to do a lot better than that I think.
PM: Well is that an invitation?
JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: Those things are behind me, Amanda.
JOURNALIST: Has Mr Keating's credibility been damaged by his
statements that we weren't going to have a recession and then
we've had one, we had to have it end of the year?
PM: I think Paul would say that his standing is lower than it
has been before because of the fact that we're in recession.
But I would go on to say this; that I believe that we will
reach a position where the Australian people understand that
the decisions that we've made have been necessary, certainly
they have involved pain and will continue to involve pain for
some time. But IE remind you of the gains as well as the pain,
and I say that fully acknowledging the reality of the pain for
tens of thousands of Australians. But the gains are real
also. We now have an underlying rate of inflation which is
the lowest since these comparable records have been kept the
beginning of the 1970s. We have to the year to September an
__ inflation rate ofE 6% which is below the average OECD rate. We
S have in regard to the balance of payments an average monthly
figure in seasonally adjusted terms of $ 1.3B which is running
therefore at an annual rate of $ 15.6B, significantly below the
Budget forecast of $ 18B. We have a situation where we have
cemented into the lowered inflationary expectations the new
wage/ tax deal wit~ h the ACTU which means that in this period
ahead there are going to be significant lesser wage pressures
upon the employer7s Of this country. It will mean that there
will, as we get up to April of next year, have been a period
of 12 months with no general wage increase. So there are very
significant gains that have been made and I think as we go
through ' 91 and t~ he significance of these gains become more
apparent, not onl. y will the standing of the Treasurer but of
the Government improve.
JOURNALIST: Do you agree with the Westpac analysis yesterday
that the recovery might be later than previously thought might
be, in the second half of calender ' 91 rather than the first
half? PM: Michelle, I think that's possible because you would've
heard me say I'm not prepared to put the week or the month on
the recovery. I mean it would be irresponsible to do that.

But let me point, Michelle, to the factors which I think are
going to mean the recovery is going to take place in ' 91. I
mean the fundamentals, I believe, are these, Michelle.
Firstly and I've alluded to some of them you're going to
have the tax cut~ s operating from the 1st January, they are
quite significant and associated with that you're also going
to have this absence of the expected wage pressure, the degree
of wage pressure upon employers. That is going to be
significant. You're going to have the inevitable I believe
the inevitable turn-up of the stock cycle. That just can't
continue to run down. And of course you're going to have the
impact into ' 91 of the significant easing of monetary policy
which has taken place during 1990, with the five successive
reductions in interest rates. So those are the fundamentals
which make me confident that through ' 91 the recovery is going
to take place. But I'm not going to give false hopes by
saying I think it's that particular month. I am confident
it'll take place in ' 91.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you think that Mr Keating possesses
the qualities to make him a great Australian Prime Minister?
PM: I think he has the capacities within him.
JOURNALIST: Will you win the next election as Prime Minister
Mr Keating. If you fell under a bus
PM: You're not pointing the bone at me, are you? It's
hypothetical. I am the one who's got the best chance of
leading Labor to victory in the next election. I fully intend
to do so.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how do you think
PM: You better not see Hazel see her tonight if I were
you. JOURNALIST: How do you think Bob Hawke will stack up against
John Curtin in the history books of the future?
PM: Well that's for the historians and I'm not going to do a
Churchill who, a~ s you know, said if he intended that history
would treat him well because he intended to write the history.
I'm not going to write the history. I hope that people will
see some positive comparisons. I don't think now is the
occasion to go into that in any detail but they were
challenges of different times. I haven't faced the challenge
of war and of leading the country at its direst moment of
peril when it really could've been invaded and taken over.
That was a unique period for Curtin. But I think in terms of
a preparedness to have a view about the necessity for
Australia to change, to be a different Australia and to have
the courage to tell my fellow Australians that they had to
face up to that, that the world that they were now living in
was fundamentally different from the world in which they'd
shaped their assuimptions and attitudes of the past, I think
there are some comparisons there but this is a task for
history. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, have you told Mrs Hawke of your
decision to keep on keeping on and what was her reaction?

PM: I think you probably should listen to a conversation
between Paul and Hazel. I think you're going to get the
feeling of that. Paul sort of got it wrong last night, didn't
you, Paul. I've never seen so much steam coming out of her
ears. She's a very placid if I can use that word she's
basically a very placid person. She's very upset and annoyed
with you, Paul, and you got it wrong.
JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: Yes, well she got that impression. Well wait a minute.
No, this is very serious. I haven't finished this. I can
assure you that Hazel is both confident of victory in the next
election and wants me to be leading the Labor Party as long as
I feel able to do so.
JOURNALIST: Did you make this decision, the five year
S decision, before or after last Friday?
PM: Before. I answered that question before. Now how are we
going? JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in considering these approaches to stay
on with the extra term were you conscious of the danger that
you may fail to recognise the appropriate time of your
departure? PM: I suppose that's always a problem for incumbents, Geoff,
but as I have said before and the records sustain it, I had a
fascinating, productive, useful life before politics. I
intend to have one afterwards. Being in the Parliament and
even being Prime Minister is not the only thing in life. I
mean it's not as though I will be going through this period
thinking this is the only thing which can give Bob Hawke
satisfaction.
O JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, given that Paul Keating's chances now
rest on Labor winning six straight terms, what chances has he
got of ever becoming Prime Minister?
PM: I think he'S got quite a good one.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, your decision to stay, was that shaped
in any way by Mr Keating's unpopularity?
PM: No, I have the position that as well as what I might
think myself, I have my colleagues saying to me and they're
not putting it in terms of anti Paul they're saying we
believe that you are the best person to lead the Labor Party,
you're still active physically, mentally and they have
acknowledged the fact that our stocks as a Government and mine
relatively are down. But they believe that for a range of
reasons that the best interests of the Party and the
Government and the country are involved in me continuing to
lead. Now I think that's right and I'm prepared to act
accordingly. JOURNALIST: Just on the GATT Round. If ever there was a case
for leadership it's there.

17.
PM: Sure.
JOURNALIST: Do you think the time has come that you, as Prime
Minister, ought : to take Australia's case more publicly than
perhaps has been the case thus far?
PM: I couldn't hiave taken it more publicly than I have. I
mean JOURNALIST: I thiink you've activated the APEC round in terms
of our own bloc?
PM: No. What I've done is to, both by phone, in one case,
and by personal letters to a range of world leaders, I have
really taken the lead in this more than any other national
leader, by personal communication and I will continue to do
that. There was no point I mean, I don't know whether it
was implicit in -the question, Dennis, that I, you know, it may
have been a case for me going to Brussels rather than, or in
addition to, Neal but that was not appropriate. I mean, the
only national leader that went was the new Prime Minister of
New Zealand and . I think that the assessment is that, you know,
his presence didn't change things. That was a case for it
being left at that stage in the hands of the Ministers. But
now what I will be doing is to look at what further steps I
can take to try and inject the political will, Dennis, in it
that's necessary. The position that's been reached now is
that the round has been suspended. What is being done is that
Dunkel, the head of GATT, is now, in this period ahead, going
to be having discussions with people, particularly in Europe,
to look at what's the best way of trying to resume. What's
the best way and how can it be done. It may be a question,
for instance, of also talking with or writing to him. What
we've now reached is, and I think it's worth making this
point, that the influence of Australia has been proven to this
point to be very significant. If we hadn't established the
Cairns Group and created that as a force that is now being
accepted in these negotiations and it's quite clear what
0 would've happened. We wouldn't be facing now the situation
where these talks were adjourned. There would've been a
stitched up result with agriculture left off. Agriculture
would've been out as our predecessors walked away from the
Tokyo round with agriculture left out. Australia has changed
the picture and the pattern of the international negotiating
scene in regard t: o trade because as a result of the initiative
that we've taken and I pay tribute in ministerial terms back
to John Dawkins then to Duffy and now to Blewett through
them and with our leadership at the top, we have created a new
situation whereby the truth, the reality is this; there will
be no, there will be no outcome if there is no acceptable
outcome on agriculture. We have taken the view that it's far
better to have this adjournment that we've got than either
accepting a minimalist position, you know, a no good decision
or abandoning the negotiations. So we will now use all the
influence that we've got and I will consider what are the best
things I can do now to try and get that political will and
impetus that's necessary to get an outcome. Because it is the
case, as a result of what we've done, there will be no outcome
unless there's an outcome on agriculture.

18.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, are you disappointed that Malaysia is
talking about turning APEC into a more regional trading group
with Australia and New Zealand specifically excluded?
PM: Yes, I don't attach very much significance to the
observations of Malaysia about excluding Australia. As you
know, at the present time our relations are going through a
sort of a rather bumpy patch, and you know the reasons for
that. I don't want to elaborate on that.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Just a minute. I don't want to elaborate on that. Let
me say this; that I have said, as you know, publicly now on
two or three occasions that if you get to the worst case
scenario where the Uruguay Round were to collapse rather than
be adjourned as it is now we would have to look at our
position then and, of course we would within APEC, which not
only includes Australia but which is the creation of
Australia. We would be looking at what would be the
appropriate reconstitution of APEC in that situation, but I
must emphasise that is not our preferred position and we will
be doing everything we possibly can to get a positive outcome
out of the Uruguay Round when it resumes.
JOURNALIST: received back from the European leaders to
whom you've written, give you any hope that
PM: Mixed bag so far, but I must emphasise that those replies
were received before the adjournment and the position quoted
by the adjournment. I live in hope in these things, but I
don't underestimate the difficulties that we are going to
face.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, aren't the Cairns group of countries,
including Australia, the ones that stand to lose most from the
collapse of the 13ATT talks and therefore wouldn't it be better
in the end to accept the position on agriculture?
PM: Well, Geoff, I mean it's a good question, but I don't
think it's right because I think our great hope basically is
that there is a very widespread degree of understanding in
lots of Europe, lots of parts of Europe that they stand to
lose enormously. The, you know, I don't rehearse the
statistics, you know them, the billions of dollars that are
involved in transfer payments either price wise or tax wise
within Europe which significantly inflate the cost and price
structure and therefore reduce the competitive position of
Europe and those things are very deeply understood. I mean,
one of the things that probably sticks in my mind most from my
last visit to Eurcope was that meeting I had with the very
significant group of German industrialists who were totally at
one with us in our position and were active in propagating the
insanity of these GATT position. So while that degree of
understanding is there, I think there is a very considerable
degree of hope and I think what we've got to do, as well as
trying to get the political impetus, you know, at the
political level, I think we've got to do what we can to
harness those areas and important areas of understanding
within Europe. Of course, as far as the developing countries
are concerned, the tragedy of the breakdown in the Uruguay

19.
Round is very real for them and there is an understanding in
the developed countries, in many of the developed countries,
of that truth too. So, I think it's a, there's a pretty
widespread perception that the harm, the dimension of the harm
is enormous beyond the Cairns Group and we've got to work on
that. JOURNALIST: deal with the reality, it's the German
farmers that have even more political clout than the German
industrialists? PM: Yes, that is one of the realities, but we have some hope
that now that the election is over and that Chancellor Kohl
has got, as he has, a very handsome majority that within that
new milieu the influence of the industrialists and the
consumers may be more forceful. I mean, it's not just the
industrialists, I mean, the fact is that nearly 93 percent of
Germans stand to suffer from the current position being
maintained. JOURNALIST: Given the GATT adjournment, is there any point in
further delaying the industry statement?
PM: Well it, of course, can be argued that that, from one
point of view, it can be argued that that means further delay
because there's one line of argument, you could say that until
that is resolved you don't have the framework, the
international framework of knowledge within which you'd be
making decisions. But having said that, I hope that we'll
still be able to make a statement in the sort of timeframe
we've been talking about.
JOURNALIST: what would your attitude be to a purchase of
Fairfax by either News Corp or Consolidated Press?
PM: As far as News Corp is concerned, I wouldn't favour,
basically, I wouldn't favour an acquisition by News
Corporation and I. w1o uld have thought that as far as News
Corporation is concerned, its mind and the mind of its bankers
is concentrated more on the disposal than the acquisition of
assets at the present time. As far as the Packer organisation
is concerned, they, of course, are confronted with the reality
of the cross media rules that we've put in place and they
would have to make a decision as to which way they wanted to
go there if they in fact did have an interest in that matter.
JOURNALIST: Could I ask your reaction to the, your general
reaction to the death of the Fairfax dynasty and also whether
for the sake of the health of the industry, you would prefer
Fairfax to be sold as a block or broken up and sold as
separate mastheads?
PM: I don't find myself shedding any tears about the death of
a dynasty. I mean, I, you know, I'm not a, in my nature a
dynastyworshipper if it's Fairfax or whatever.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: No, no, I'm sort of ambivalent about Fairfax. I mean,
Fairfax is not some monolithic view. I mean, I think, if I
may say so, some of those who write for Fairfax are

perspicacious, constructive, others I would prefer not to
describe so. And some are variable, but I don't really have
any views about that aspect of it. My concern is that, and
let me say this, I think that the newspapers in the Fairfax
group, we're talking about the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age
and the Financial Review, are great newspapers. I think they
are great newspapers, they are a very, very significant part
of the Australian political, economic and social scene. In my
view it's important that they retain their positions. I think
they've got proud traditions, by that I don't mean that I've
always been happy with everything they have said or done or
the influences they've wielded, but by any standards,
Australian or international, these are great newspapers and I
want to see them continuing to flourish in this country. Now
whether that is best achieved by them being disposed of in
block or separately, I don't know. But my concern is the one
I've expressed.
JOURNALIST: I take it from your earlier reference that you
wouldn't consider any
PM: No. Ok.
JOURNALIST: why you would be opposed to News Corp or
against it
PM: Well, while I have said that in the past that I believe
that the market is appropriate in having decided, you know,
what's happened in the past. There comes a point at which you
don't want an absolutely, overwhelming ownership of the media
in one set of hands. I think that, you know, for fairly
obvious reasons it would be better if there was ownership in
hands other than the News Corporation. I don't think that's a
very complex sort of set of reasoning I have on that.
JOURNALIST: Is the Government prepared to re-look at its
opposition to the idea of Robert Maxwell buying The Age?
this morning he's expressed renewed interest. Would you have
another look at him or would you still rule him out
completely? PM: No. My position prima facie would be against it but I do
ask you to look at the answer I gave before. If there's some
particular proposition that comes up which involves some
degree of foreign ownership we'd be prepared to look at it.
My preference obviously is that it be Australian ownership.
OK. Thanks.
ends