4
4I. .. 1.
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP,
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL LYNEHAM, 7: 30 REPORT, 4 JUNE 1992
E OE PROOF COPY
PL: Prime Minister, thanks for slowing down long enough
to speak with one of the faded and jaded players.
PM: Well that's a pleasure. If that's how you want to
describe yourself.
PL: Well that's how you described the established media
outlets yesterday.
PM: Well I think they are. As I said a bit of fade on
all of them.
PK: So you can't wait for those American quiz shows with
all the custard pies and the plastic compares?
PM: I don't think you'll see those.
PL: You won't see them on Pay TV?
PM: No, I think what you'll see on Pay TV is blockbuster
movies, the movies you see as first releases at the
movie theatre, you'll be able to turn it on and
watch it at home. That's what you'll see in the
main.
PL: But apart from that though, do you think there's a
whole lot of terrific TV programs out there that the
established networks are, for some perverse reason,
not showing people? Is all that product waiting to
burst on the screen?
PM: Are you making a case against Pay TV?
PL: I'm just wondering if we need this sort of
investment in this time in our nation's history. I
mean, what about a bit of productive export
production?
PM: I think information technolo y is going to be one of
the important industries in Australia. And we have
the satellite, we have the technology available, and
it's a matter of choice I think for Australians, I
think if they want to lay out what is the equivalent
of the price of a VCR they can beam into their home
four channels of movies, sport, news etc.
PL: Done by somebody who's not been in the industry
before?
PM: Well done by somebody who's been in the
entertainment industry, not necessarily the
television industry.
PL: And someone who is going to bid up a lot of money to
get these first four channels of f the satellite then
twelve months from that, while they're still trying
to get us to buy the dishes and sign up, everyone
else gets in on the act and it's open slather.
PM: No, but the others have got one channel only, one
channel not four.
PL: Yes, but one of the others could be Kerry Packer, or
anyone.
PM: Kerry, even though I know he would regard himself as
a radiating force, I don't believe he could beam
four channels for himself when there's only one
available. So he's got one channel even if he were
to succeed. Whereas the first player is in the box
seat. They get four channels.
PL: It's only in a year.
PM: More than that. Four channels on an existing
technology as a new group removed from television,
removed from newspapers, removed from
telecommunications. As a new group, new players,
diversity, which I think is what the public is
looking for, they can go for their lives in signing
households up to Pay TV. On transponders five and
six, the single ones, that's where you're likely to
see fibre optics, what's called interactive services
where you can talk back to your bank or order your
shopping and where you'll have block buster movies
as well, news. But it's on one channel at this
stage so they can't do it on one channel.
PL: But you've got all this rival competing technology
coming. I mean we going to have aerial and black
boxes everywhere you look aren't we?
PM: No, because I think the one black box we'll have
will be common to them all. That is, that part of
the legislative framework is that the black box you
have in the house will be able to deal with any of
the technology so you won't have to re-invest in it.
PL: It's going to be a hell of a black box.
PM: No, you know how minaturised things are these days,
this is as clever as anything. So it means that
Telecom, which has made a very large decision to
wire up the Australian suburbs years ago with fibre
optics as very few telecommunication carriers around
the world have done, it could then profit from that
decision and Australians could profit from their
foresight in having interactive services which the
satellite can't provide. So we get the best of all
worlds early, satellite provided, quality Pay
TV, blockbusters etc, and also the fibre optic
option or a hybrid between the satellite and the
cable.
PL: And only 10 per cent of it by value Australian
product.
PM: That's right and I think that that will still take a
fair bit of doing.
PL: Now I know you have got this speedy, eat my dust
style running this week, but..
PM: Well we've had it running for eight years really.
PL: Yes, but its been metal on the floor since Sunday
though hasn't it? Slightly speedier since Sunday?
PM: What did you say? Metal on the floor?
PL: Yes.
PM: Yes.
PL: But doesn't it all look like policy making on the
run though? I mean this Pay TV thing was turned
around in a couple of hours wasn't it?
PM: I think the policy dexterity of the Government, the
fact that you've got and you have in this
Government, at least a good third to half that
Caucus as technologically well informed about
telecommunications, frankly as anyone in the
bureaucracy, and people can sit down and discuss
variants and options, in what is after all a limited
discussion, and work their way through to the best
option. I think we are able to do that and we did
it with expedition.
PL: Expedition is an understatement. I mean you say to
Chris Schacht I dare you to take on this option and
he says right-o, I mean its almost like a poker game
isn't it.
PM: This is a subject which has been around for donkey's
years and if we were to allow the plodding rate
we'ye had through the bureaucratic
PL: But suddendly you're talking about giving networks
per cent of the action. Yesterday they get none.
PM: No, yesterday they get 100.
PL: Oh well the tail end of the game.
PM: That's right. No, you've got to understand. You
see your not up to what it means either. Do you
understand? I mean this policy is moving awfully
quickly.
PL: Has it moved again since yesterday has it?
PM: The thing is we went from 45 per cent, we went
upwards to infinity to 100, but not on the first
four channels. On the first four..
PL: You went down to zero?
PM: We went down to zero and that way we do get a new
player. I mean this is a very strong case for a new
player in the media so we are not dealing with the
Newslimiteds, or the Consolidated Press or any of
the other established players, or TCN 9 or 7 or any
of these other people. Alt's basically a group that
will be new to the media, as we've seen new people
to radio come, as we've seen new people to regional
television. It will make Australia more diverse in
media and that's got to be good.
PL: And there's all that talent out there is there that
we've not spied before, that's just eluded us up
until now, all that programming talent, that
networking expertise.
PM: We have been able to run a picture theatre business
for fifty years in this country.
PL: Yes, but that's nearly gone broke recently.
PM: I don't know why some of them and the providers of
television and movie products can't run a Pay TV
station. It's basically a video shop tubed into
your house.
PL: We'll find out won't we? For the moment at least
you appear to have left the Marshall Islands affair
behind in your slip stream, but what if the
Democrats decide after all to join the Coalition in
demanding a Senate inquiry?
PM: I think that would be an abuse of the powers of the
Senate.
PL: Why, they've got every right to do that?
PM: No, I thinkc this is a matter where obviously Sentor
Richardson. he person first involved in this, had
made an unguarded connection with someone who was
prepared to fight ruthlessly to prey upon his good
instincts and goodwill. But there was never any
notion of anything improper being there and for this
to be dragged out for political reasons is not to be
applauded.
PL: But all those former associates of Mr Symons, the
public servants, all giving evidence, I mean it
could look a bit messy after a while.
PM: But what former associates and which public
servants. I mean who are Mr Symons contacts.
Millions of Australians deal with the Commonwealth
Government, why should they be the subject of
inquiries other than the entirely appropriate ones
which are done in the normal course of bureaucratic
investigations.
PL: Whatever you think though they can do it, can they
not?
PM: You see the Opposition, this can only happen with
the support of the Liberal Party.
PL: And they're red hot for it aren't they?
PM: And in these two weeks when we've been recasting the
airline system of Australia, remodelling the airline
systei and establishing for the first time pay
television, and at the same time working on a
rejuvenation of TAFE, technical and further
education, Dr Hewson is there publishing pamphlets
frightening older people about the prospects of them
being burgled, but they won't be if they introduce a
consumption tax.
PL: Which might be good politics, elderly people are
afraid of crime.
PM: We've got to have a proper moral basis to our
politics and if it gets down to it, this is the
Liberal Party
PL: You're saying he is immoral?
PM: I think that style of argument of immoral, yes I do
and when the Government is so obviously on the
tangible issues in public life and while the Cabinet
is sitting at night doing these things, they're
sitting at night working out ad campaigns they've
taken from the worst elements of American
electioneering.
PL: Well let's talk about another real issue, the Mabo
jdgpision in the High Court yesterday. You said
you'd welcome it, why?
PM: Because I think the whole notion of dispossession is
put down by it.
PL: Galarrwuy Yunupingu says the Government must either
move quickly to negotiate a treaty now and implement
comprehensive national land rights or face a barrage
of litigation as a resul t o s decision.
PM: I don't think that's right. I don't think it's wise
for Aboriginal leaders to take that position.
PL: There's a lot of crown land out there they could lay
claim to.
PM: Many have not, but the Court itself stressed that
there wouldn't be a threat to private property as a
result of the decision. It's just we're recognising
the fact that even though the Aboriginals have not
had our traditional association and ownership with
the land, or have not worked the land as Europeans
have worked the land, that did not entitle us to
take the view they were dispossessed of the land.
This is what this decision means.
PL: Training in general and TAFE in particular, what's
the latest stage of the game? I mean the ministers
are meeting tomorrow aren't they the State and
Federal Education Ministers?
PM: The latest stage of the game is I would like very
much for the States to accept the Commonwealth offer
for the Commonwealth to take over TAFE in total.
PL: Why do you think..
PM: Just understand it, funding and administration.
PL: Why though? Why do you have to take it over to make
it work?
PM: Because it has not been developed as a national
system, it is not adequately providing certainly not
enough places for kids as they leave school, but
more than that it is not adequately reflecting the
training profile of the labour market as it should.
PL: But what if the Premiers so no again?
PM: Well let's see what they say.
PL: But you've suggested if I read you right earlier
today, that some of them might start missing out on
some money?
PM: No, we're saying that if in the event that they
don't accept that offer, if we look at a joint
funding model, the Commonwealth will provide growth
to it providing we get commitments from the States.
Obviously we will not be providing our funds, or
certainly growth in our funds, to States which don't
give the commitments.
PL: So the ones that don't join in could miss out to
some extent?
PM: Again, we may maintain our recurrent funding but the
growth factors, why should we support a system which
is not growing as it should.
PL: What do you think of the idea of a youth wage. Many
people say that that's a good idea, do you agree?
PM: We are now looking at the Carmichael-Rep~ t.. and
entry level training wages, and I think the whole
notion of getting young people into work, into
companies and at the same time have a training focus
to it is important and there is a great possibility
there of doing something good. It is therefore
doubly important that the TAFE system provides that
training place and on that basis I think the
Carmichael recommendations can succeed and the, if
you like, the trials we will now fund the models
we're looking at within that, those pilot programmes
will be I think important precursors to the
development of such a system.
PL: And you have talked of helping comnpanies that are
offering a fair bit of work based training to
youngsters, haven't you?
PM: Yes, a number of companies have expressed to me an
interest in taking up many thousands of young people
and we are seeing how that might be accommodated.
And I am going to hold a meeting with a number of
the significant companies.
PL: Many thousands?
PM: Many thousands, yes.
PL: What ten thousand?
PM: Well maybe not in any individual company, but
certainly multiple thousands in individual
companies. And certainly, probably many more then
ten.
PL: But if their giving these kids a genuine go and
teaching them things on a trainee basis, you might,
the Government might help them? Is that how it
might work?
PM: That's right, that's right. But again that is to be
looked at and negotiated under the pilot programs.
PL: The APPM dispute, Prime Minister, if the ACTU
targets other operations of North Broken Hill Peko
this dispute could go national very quickly.
PM: Well I have said in the House and I will take the
opportunity of saying here, this is the sort of
industrial mayhem John Hewson would give us if he
was Prime Minister. This is exactly the approach
that the Coalition are following say to the
company don't deal with the union, only deal with
the individual employees.
PL: But how can we stop it? How and when is it going to
end?
PM: Well it can only end when the company comes to its
senses. In this one you have got the Tasmanian
Liberal Government, the Commonwealth Labor
Government, the Industrial Relations Commission, the
Commnonwealth Minister for Industrial Relations, the
Tasmanian Premier, all saying to the company don't
sack people, take them back as per the agreement.
PL: But they started sacking them today and your
Industrial Relations Minister says the IRC doesn't
have the power to force the companies hand.
Meanwhile it threatens to go national, we have got a
current account to worry about, I am sure you worry
about it more then most people.
PM: Well I think, and can we say the current account is
now down to a very low level as we noticed two days
ago
PL: We don't want to start importing too much more paper
though do we?
PM: in the national accounts, no we don't. This is
a matter of great disruption for the people of
Burnie and I could only enjoin the company to take
the advice of the Commonwealth, the Commission, and
indeed, the Liberal Premier of Tasmania Mr Groom, in
saying take the people back on and re-start the
business in terms of the agreement made last week.
PL: Bob Hawke would have stepped in about now wouldn't
he?
PM: Well maybe he might have, but the fact is this is
exactly the kind of industrial relations policy that
Dr Hewson has been enjoining us to adopt, a la New
Zealand. See APPM said they will not deal with the
union, they will only deal with the individual
workers. Well, Australians should contemplate what
prospects they would have as individuals in dealing
with a business or a company. Not as a group as a
union, or as a collective group, but as an
individual. And of course that is what the dispute
is about, this is the policy Dr Hewson and Mr Howard
are championing.
PL: Why does the Reserve Bank want to get rid of
Caroline Chisolm from the $ 5 note? What have they
got against her?
PM: We are dancing around the topics.
PL: Around the world for sixpence.
PM: I don't know. I think that Caroline Chisolm was
probably the most significant women, in certainly
our early history, and her effigy was on the five
dollar note.
PL: They want to put the Queen there do they not?
PM: The Board has decided it should have an effigy of
the Queen. Now I wrote to the Board when I was
Treasurer to say that I disagreed with this and that
I thought that Caroline Chisolm's effigy should be
maintained, or retained. But the Board in its
wisdom have decided otherwise, and in this respect
the Board has a clear power given to it by the
Parliament under the Reserve Bank Act.
PL: So what the Prime Minister thinks is irrelevant, is
it?
PM: I think in this subject it may not be irrelevant,
but the prerogative is that of the Board's.
PL: So she could go, Caroline Chisolm could go?
PM: I think that is a possibility but the Board, in its
wisdom, may at the eleventh hour choose otherwise.
PL: But the Queen is still going to be on the coins is
she? No problem about that?
PM: No, none whatsoever.
PL: You were asked today in Parliament, when will we see
your submission on changing the flag?
PM: Well we have had so much on at the moment, airlines,
there the ones you see, and there's all the other
things that go through Cabinet, we have had such a
program, and particularly with the Parliament
sitting for the last two weeks. I will get round to
bringing a submission about it.
PL: A few weeks, or months or what?
PM: I think probably a few weeks, maybe a month, where
we can sensibly think about the flag and its future.
That would be within the context of not changing the
flag, whatever the Cabinet decides, and however it
may approach a change in the design of the flag.
Not actually changing the flag in its official
designation without a plebiscite of some kind. Not
a referendum because a referendum has States
majority questions, what have you. But a
plebiscite, a vote.
PL: So something a bit better then what an opinion poll
might say?
PM: Well, I think that on this it is important that the
public believe they have a right to say what they
think about the flag. But I certainly take the view
that we can't go on flying the flag, our flag, with
the flag of another country in the corner.
PL: Would you be unhappy with linking this plebiscite to
the next federal election?
PM: Well it depends what I take to Cabinet, and we we'll
see.
PL: My last topic Prime Minister. What we discovered
yesterday was that you, Dr Hewson and Peter Reith
have all reported late on the affairs of your
private companies. Not a very shining example by
the nation's leaders to the corporate sector,
surely?
PM: Well I wasn't upbraiding Dr Hewson.
PL: No, but nevertheless you were all in the wrong as it
turned out.
PM: But the interesting thing is while I have been
beavering away on these various policies in the last
two weeks, Dr Hewson, the fellow who said he would
bring some decent politics to Australia, is down at
the companies office digging out my company return
to find out whether the information return was
lodged on time, and had the gall to go on about it
and have Mr Peacock ask me about it, having failed
himself for three consecutive years to lodge his
return on time, and Mr Reith the same for two
consecutive years.
PL: And both have conceded their embarrassment, and
there is lots of egg dripping of f face. But
nevertheless, you were all in the wrong and are you
happy to cop it sweet and pay a penalty if that's
what happens?
PM: There is a late lodgement fee and a penalty, and
that has already been paid in my case. And
obviously they will get theirs in on time now too.
PL: You know if you keep on making investments though,
like half a million dollars in a piggery, you are
going to have to stop taunting John Hewson about
being wealthy though, aren't you?
PM: On that's not the value of one of his Ferraris. I
mean, he has got more in toys, in his garage, in one
toy, than I have invested in a simple primary
industry.
PL: It's a lot of money though half a million.
PM: Do you think it is today, in terms of investments?
PL: Well I tell you what, if you would like to leave it
somewhere in a paper bag I'll pick it up.
PM: The thing is Dr Hewson has a vast collection of
assets, which if you turn up the pecuniary interests
of the Liberal front bench you will find a plethera
of companies and trusts, reflecting of course the
wealth which these people have traditionally had.
PL: The truth is you are all pretty wealthy these days
aren't you?
PM: I don't think that is true. I think you will find
most members of the Government have one house and
probably a mortgage. That's certainly my position,
one house and a mortgage, and an interest in a farm.
PL: What do you know about pigs? What is so good about
pigs?
PM: I never found how anyone was so interested when Mr
Anthony had a similar interest, no one ever
questioned him about his interest in a piggery.
PL: There seems to be a political link here. I mean,
Rodger Douglas in New Zealand went into pigs.
PM: Yes they are very much the vogue. I have got to say
that.
PL: What's so good about them?
PM: I don't know, I don't know. But Howard asked me
yesterday about it, I said I wouldn't take you there
because I would then have to find you again, and
that would be a problem.
PL: Thanks for your time and I hope we haven't
interrupted for too long this feverish pitch or
policy change.