tn A PRIME MINISTER1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
INTERVIEW WITH 4 CORNERS, ABC TV
SYDNEY 31 MAY 1993
E& OE PROOF COPY
AO: Mr Keating has agreed tonight to his first substantive Interview since the
election. and Prime Minister, welcome.
PM: Good Andrew, nice to be here.
AO: When you won power, Immediately afterwards you , urged your Ministers to
stop and think, to do nothing for a while, to take stock, almost like sending
them Into retreat, I suppose, for a while. Oid you actually need to meditate
on just what you wanted to do with this personal mandate over the next
three years?
PM: I think so. I think it is the right time for a Government after an election to
think about the future and think about the circumstances in this election,
some of the longer run issues. The issues which will be Important in
twenty or thirty years from now.
AO: But the point is you haven't really had that much time, I suppose, to think
about that of late. I mean, the last couple of years have been all
consuming, haven't they? First you had to get rid of Hawke, then you had
to stop Hewson, all the time and energy, I suppose, was used in getting
there. Was It a bit like suddenly arriving and having to stop and ask
yourself, oh ok, now I am here what do I really want to do?
PM: No, because last year. In 1992, the principal endeavour of the Government
was to get the economy growing again, but since the election I think the
Government has decided to think about long run Issues, to set its sails,
and to take the wind shifts wherever they are, not to react to them. There
is always this notion, you made this point about being Invisible, that's code
2
for saying that we should appear at press conferences answering wind
shifts. Well I think it is Important for Governments to think about things,
set their sails, arnd go to them, Since the election we have had on our
plate setting the principles for the fulfilment of the High Court decision on
native title under Mabo, thinking about the future structure of APEC arid
trade which I gave a long and important speech on in New Zealand a
week or two ago, and the other issues you mentioned.
AG: Well we will come to all those Issues.
PM: Setting up the republic and getting a thoughtful structure, to have a proper
debate about the republic. Looking at the long-term unemployed.
AG: For the moment can we stick with the long -term unemployed because the
economy and unemployment, and solutions to that, was a major issue at
the election arnd yet here we are just straight after the election and now
you appoint a committee to look at the issue of long-term unemployment
to find a solution, which they will be sitting on until the end of this year, I
think?
PM: I think so, yes. Because I think we have a chance to do something novel
In Australia, I am quite sure very few comparable countries will attempt to
do as we are already doing and can do. That Is, we already have In place
substantial labor market programs to get people work experience and
training and get them back to work.
AG: But you appreciate the people are cynical about yet another committee?
PM: I know, but again It's not a matter of a committee, I don't think, Andrew.
The fact is we are in a new phenomenon. That is, that we have got a high
proportion of middle age people, of those unemployed who are middle
aged, we set to work on dealing with youth unemployment last year and It
made some substantial inroads Into that. But I think what we don't want to
see In this country Is people marginalised. In Britain, for instance, you
have got very high prices of labour, high labour rates, yet 3 million people
are out of work, And you say to yourself, well how could there be high
rates of labour with so many people out of work? And the answer Is
because they are sidelined, they are just no longer taken to the
employment equation. I don't want to see that happen In Australia.
AO: So what do you want to come out of this committee, what do you hope it
will come up with, what options?
PM: Well ways In which we can get people, longer term people back Into work
expenence and back into work, and to study the post-war patterns of
employment In Australia and In other countres and to try and take lessons
from that experience. ( I D -4 i U U I
AO: You do want to get them back Into work, though, do you? Because you
did raise an Interesting question the other day when you said, should
everyone who wants to work be entitled to a job. I mean, are you
seriously suggesting that our society can now afford to abandon that
fundemental principle, that right?
PM: Well, it's a matter of whether the notion of full employment Is zero
unemployment, and whether in an economy where there's a lot of flux a
big shift In its structure where people are going to be trained and retrained
whether In that sort of an economy you're not going to have a
proportion of people who are unemployed, Now, you've got another
problem as well and that Is, the problem of the older unemployed, eldedy,
oider people.
AO: Yes, you're now saying that perhaps one solution to that is to bring forward
ihe pension for these older people. Now, I'm sure that's aimed In part, at
least, so they can avoid the humiliation of having to go out looking for
non-existent work, but a lot of people will see it as pensioning off the
unemployed?
PM: Well, we've already made a decision in the election to set up as we have
already we're already doing legislation a provisional aged pension for
people over 60, because It Is somewhat unreal for someone to be
requiring somebodiy who Is 60 to subject themselves to the work test
AO: to start again?
PM: and when they can't get work, But it's an option for them, they don't
have to write themselves down as on provisional aged pension.
AC: But you're thinking of bringing it down to 55, aren't you?
PM: Not necessarily, no. I don't think this is not pre-judging this committee's
work I don't think that's much of an option. I think what you've got to do
Is get more economic growth, find more jobs, train more people and get
the velocity of people through the pool of unemployment up and give them
work experience. About 80% of those who are long-term unemployed
now, find work, those who find work 80% of them have had some
contact with the labour market program these are the programs of the
Commonwealth which touch about 500,000 people a year and about
of those who are long-term unemployed find themselves keeping
their lob and have had some contact with the labour market programs. So
it's a matter of seeing what we can do with this problem.
AO: One thing a lot of people would suggest you could do straightaway, Is cut
the tax cuts that you have in mind. Now, let me mention to you Professor
Bob Gregory who Is on this unemployment committee that you're looking
at, who says that we've really got to be prepared to pay a lot of money for
these people over 45 who can't find work to support them the community
4
has to be prepared to do something about that. And like many other
people, he's suggesting and same of them Inside your own Government
you'd have to concede are questioning these tax cuts. They're saying
bluntly: look, if you're going to do something about these long-term
unemployed, surely we have to abandon tax cuts for well-paid people?
PM: Let me just make this point on thejA~ cyts. If the country is to make a
commitment to the long-term unemployed, It's got to be a commitment
from more than just the Government it's also got to be a commitment
from the whole community and that includes, of course, business. So the
notion that people should be laying people off as simply efficiency
changes, to find that businesses are not running often as well as they
were and that the moment there Is strong pick-up In demand they'll have
to be re-hired may not be a policy which is advantageous in the end of
business. So If there's going to be a compact in the nation about
committing Itself to higher levels of employment, It's got to extend beyond
the Government.
AO: Indeed, but surely business is simply doing what the Government said?
You've urged them to get leaner and meaner they've done that and
now it's going to be very difficult to turn them around, isn't it? They've
discovered they can do very nicely with fewer people, they just had record
profit?
PM: Until they have a surge In demand, and it might be that they've lost a lot of
skills that they'll pay dearly for to have them returned. So it's not
necessarily the best policy that Is, In corporate terms to be seeing the
unemployment queue rise because often the company demand is not
the problem, it's just simply to get more efficient and they get more
profitable.
AO: Okay, If I could get back to those tax cuts, though. Isn't it almost immoral,
Isn't there something almost immoral about having $ 8 billion that you're
about to hand out In tax cuts to well paid people, when you've got one
million people unemployed those long queues you've just referred to?
PM: I don't think somebody on $ 20,000 a year Is a high paid person.
AO: But up to $ 20,000 they get nothing out of it.
PM: The tax rate at the moment, the marginal rate for somebody on two-thirds
of average weekly earnings, that's $ 20,000, is 38% it's too high. It's just
too high. That's what the tax cuts are there for, they are basically to deal
with that group between $ 20,000 and about $ 45,000. Now I don't regard
those people as wealthy.
AO: Well compared to people without work, they are?
I LL 1 JTU 1 l 1
PM: But the point 13 this: the notion Is we can't afford the tax cuts because of
what, Government debt?
AO: Yes, because you have a huge deficit, which you acknowledge yourself
you wart to get down dramatically.
P M. Yes, I know, but again look at it in the context of any other parameter
we've got just about one of the lowest Government debts to GDP net
debt to GDP In the world. Australlas net debt to GDP Is 12%
Government debt to GDP I'll draw the numbers because I think It's
Important to get this over. France's is 27% of GDP, the United Kingdom's
is 30.3%, Spain's Is 33%, the United States' Is 34.7%, Canada's Is 49%
and ours Is 12%.
AO: But If we're going to make International comparisons, we're not that
heavily taxed are we?
PM: No, but let me make this point. The point is the Government can afford, in
these cicumstances, to run these deficits because our debt to GDP is
quite low. Remember this, where we're not being given credit Is In the
1980s, we ran very large surpluses and we banked them that's why the
debt is now low. We're saying now is the right time to be using that low
debt to GDP in the right circumstances In the economy. Now people say
to me: well, President Clinton Is pulling down fiscal policy in the US so
should you. But the American..
AO: putting up taxes.
PM: The American's In the 80s had an awful fiscal policy, they never had a
surplus, they were massively In deficit right through the 80s. We were
massively In surplus, so therefore our debt to GDP, net debt, is low.
Fiscal policy has to come back towards balance in the medium ternm, but
not in the short-term. The reason the deficit for the coming year is going
to be higher than this year, the starting point
AO: $ 18 billion Instead of $ 16 billion?
PM: because the economy Is just not growing as quickly and receipts are not
coming in. If the economy, therefore, is not growing as quickly.
Investment per se Is not growing as quickly. If we're not going to have a
draw on savings, what's the point of bringing the deficit back earlier?
What is the urgency? The key point is to bring it back in the medium term,
which is what we'll do.
AO: Well, you said you want to get it back to 1% of GDP in 1996/ 97?
PM. That's right.
6
AO: That's a lot of money, $ 13 billon, from your starting point coming up this
year?
PM: Yes, but that's years away, and as the economy responds so too will
receipts, and the Government will do Its normal housekeeping job on the
outlays. The key point is: a measure of any Governments, if you like good
health, In Its Budget Is the level of Its outlays. The outays have risen
because of the cycle of spending we've had to deal with the recession and
its aftermath. As the cycle turns down so too will the outlays our outlays
will be back to one of the lowest In the OECD so the rest of it is an
equation with the receipts. That is, where does the economy go and
what's the receipts harvest.
AO: Well, if we needed any evidence of whether the economy Is still in trouble,
surely today's trade figures and the resulting dollar dive must have had
you worried?
PM: Yes, but again, you've got 1986 commodity prices. Remember this, the
world is basically in recession the United States is growing modestly,
Japan's In recession, Germany is barely out of re cession so too is the
case with Britain and as a result commodity prices are now back to 1986
levels.
AO: It's all true but, with respect, Isn't there always a reason, an excuse as to
why things aren't coming good the way you thought they would?
PM: By any other measure, exports have been growing strongly over the
decade, the qualitative change in exports Is to elaborately transformed
manufactures away from rural and mining products and at any rate I
think it's a little bit too early to be making judge ments about the trends in
the Current Account and the Balance of Payments.
AO: But you were In despair when you felt the need to talk about a ' banana
republic'. We're now within 0.1 of that all-time low, aren't we, on our
currency against the basket of currencies?
PM: Oh yes, but in the meantime we've been comparatively high and
sometimes exceptionally high which has worried us too. The market can
get awfully bullish once things start to turn around. So this a commoditydriven
currency, It's less though today, I think, although I don't think the
market thinks that. The change in composition of our exports to
manufacturers away from primary products, will mean that over time we'll
become less of a commodity-driven currency. But we still are a
commodity-driven currency and when commodities are down, the rate will
be down.
AO: Do you sometimes feel like a little balsa raft just being buffeted by all sorts
of things? Do you feel you have control of the economy?
PMV: I don't think any one person, Individual or Government can have control of
the ecpnIoM-y, but our economy Is growing at the moment about 2.5% to
2,5% to 2 34%
AO: which Is not enough to even make an inroad into unemployment, is it?
PM: Well, It would ordinarily have been the problem Is we've got people
laying people off as you mentioned earlier to be productive. So we've got
the growth bul it's productivity-laden instead of em ployment-laden. If
you're talking about the 80' s it would have been
AO: if it's not one thing, It's another, Isn't it?
PM: That's right. These things are not preordained, but nor Is there any point In
throwing your hands up and saying: well, this Is shocking, It's not running
according to as we wish.
AO: Sure, but the money market Is starting to worry. Isn't it? It Is starting to
show a lack of faith? There has been a number of projections made since
the 1987 crash and a lot of them just don't seem to come good. Where
are these gang-busting trade performances, the avalanche of investment?
They're just not there.
PM: Well they are there and they are gradually happening. I'm sure you'll get
onto McArthur River and the Aboriginal Issue that's another $ 300 million
Investment that's going to happen. There has been quite a number of
those. But the key point is that manufactured exports have risen threefold
since the early 80s, manufacturing production has doubled, the fastest
growing component of our exports is elaborately transformed
manufactures, but while a great part of the basket of our exports is in base
metals and in agriculture when those prices are down In an International
recession so too, probably, will be the Australian dollar. But as the
International recession passes and things start to grow and the demand for
commodities rise, so too, will the Australian dollar.
AO: As it passes, we've just heard more slow-growth from the Americans?
PMV: A low dollar also presents enormous competitive opportunities for
exporters. It means your products in world terms are very much cheaper
and very much more competitive.
AO: And you've got big hopes of getting into Asia. You made a big play about
that while you were In New Zealand, didn't you? What exactly do you
hope to achieve?
PMV: Well, it~ s where the fastest growth and income is in the world, it's in the
Asia/ Pacific, and if we can find ourselves integrated there, if we can
develop the Asia/ Pacific Into an open trading area, then Australia's
opportunities for income and employment growth will be enhanced.
AO: Don't we have a rather awkward situation at the moment, part of which we
alluded to a moment ago, that Australian companies are becoming leaner
and meaner, they're making these good profits but Instead of Investing
them here, they're off investing them In Asia, especially souther China,
and creating jobs there?
PM: Some are but these things find their right balances, and one of the
balances built Into the system Is dividend Imputation, so if companies pay
tax to a foreign treasury they don't get a credit for their dividends here. So
a lot of companies will find the balance between domestic investment and
abroad, but In that investment allowance the development allowance we
established in the One Nation project, which has registered $ 130 billion of
projects which are now starting to roll If just a proportion of them come to
fruition, the economy will be moving, In investment terms, quite nicely.
AO: What are the hopes of a decent trade zone in Asia?
PM: This Is what we're trying to do with APEC now improve its trade
liberalising agenda and we've established an eminent persons group to
kick that process along. Neville Wran is representing Australia on that
group and its report will be ready for the Seattle meeting of the APEC
Ministers In the United States in November. What we Intend to do with
that is try and establish a framework for further trade liberalisation and
hopefully beyond that, harmonisation of tax policies, foreign Investment
policies, packaging, food standards all the things that will make the
velocity of trade greater In the Asia/ Pacific area. There's already
tremendous growth in these economies, you mentioned China, apart from
the established ones like Japan and less so Korea and the rest of the
Tigers and the ASEAN countries, there's already a lot of growth there if
they are more open, they're more liberal economies, there's a greater
opportunity for all of them and for us. And that's why we're working so
hard on these trade policies, on APEC and of course beyond all that the
Uraguay round of the GATT which would set a much stronger background
and framework for freer trade
AO: While our companies are going into Asia, Malcom Fraser has expressed
some concern about foreign firms coming here and buying us out. I
suspect he expressed a fear that a lot of Australians have when he
wondered aloud the other night whether therell be anything left for his
grandchildren to own. Do you recognise that as an emotional concern for a
lot of Australians?
PM: Yes, but again I think what will happen with these businesses they'll be
developed as export businesses into ASIA from the platform of Australia,
by and large. And this can only be good for us In the long term. Now, a lot
of these concers have been expressed about property in the past
weve now seen high prices payed in the eighties for properties, we've
seen particularly Japanese companies selling that property down now for
much lower prices. I mean, they can't carry it away I think there are a lot
of phobias about this and the other thing Is If you're running a current
account deficit and It's got to be funded It will be funded with debt or with
equity.
AO: That's what I was going to ask you I mean there Is a perception that you
are a bit soft on foreign takeovers but in a sense you're In that bind aren't
you, of needing the Income for it, needing the proceeds from takeovers?
PM: Well today's current account for the month $ 1700 million has got to
be funded. It will be funded by debt or by equity and equity means buying
positions In the Australian commerce. Now, this Is not the place to be
arguing with Malcolm Fraser but if Malcolm was really worried about that
he wouldn't have let the seventies go by and drop our trading guard so we
start to develop large levels of debt, bad current account Imbalances by
relying on commodities and letting our manufacturing sector fail to pieces.
I mean, we dropped our guard in the late sixties, seventies and early
eighties and we've payed the piper since. And part of that is foreign equity.
AO: But you're urging constantly more Independence for Australia. It's almost
the battle hymn of your republic I suppose. Rather than attacking the
Monarchy some would say, shouldn't we be tackling more seriously our
dependence on foreign money. I mean, our foreign debt has burgeoned In
recent years, hasn't it, from, I think, it's 32% of GOP up to 43%?
PM: Well, that can only be done in two ways. Lifting our domestic savings and
lifting our own import replacement and exporting capacity and those things
are happening, the latter In particuiar I'm not sure whether you saw the
McKinsey study of 700 smaller exporting companies bt their rate of
growth is phenomenal, 14 percent compound a year. Our problem on our
trade front which Is the generator of our debt, the so-called net income
deficit, Interest payments on the old debt, is about two percent of GDP it's
about eight or nine billion. We've got an eight or nine billion dollar trade
problem to deal with and as we deal with it the debt starts to stabilise. It
can only be dealt with by a high level of Australian savings so we're not
calling on overseas savings and overseas debt and a better productive
base in this country meaning more investments, more exports, more
Import replacement. And all of those things are going on.
AO: Despite all our economic woes you've Indicated that you've spent most of
the time since the election concentrating on Mabo you've signalled that
you obviously want to achieve a major breakthrough in that understanding
with the Aboriginal people. What exactly do you want to achieve there?
PM: Well I think the High Court decision does present a tremendous
opportunity. its the opportunity of evening Australia up, of giving the
Aboriginal people what they've always believed was theirs. And that's a
legal title to the land that was always theirs. And while the High Court has
made this decision to facilitate the decision, a whole set of principles have
got to be developed whereby we give expression now what the High
Court has said Is there Is a native title In the common law which has
existed since settlement In 1788, discovered only In June 1992, but
existed from that time.
AO: What exactly does that mean, do you think, for the Aboriginal people?
PM: I think what it means is that they have a claim on land in this country
which can be facilitated other than by resort to statutory land rights. In
other words instead of the Parliaments of Australia conferring on them a
land right something the community of Australia, via the parliaments,
gives them its something which has more Innate dignity. It's theirs of
right.
AO: Well they're now fearing that In fact the parliaments of Australia are taking
it away from them. I mean given the fine sentiments that have been
expressed about trying to reach this understanding, the reconciliation with
A boriginal peopLe, McArthur River must have come as a surprise to them.
PM: Well I don't think so but I'll come to that In a moment. What we've got to
do is set up a system whereby we establish who has native title, and then
upon having established It, where procedural fairness and compensation
are paid for any use which may be put to that land, subject to that title.
Now hearing claims for native title across Australia will be a test of our
capacity to develop systems because it really means that there Is In
common law a title to land for the Aboriginal people of this country who
can establish an association with it. So Its going to really test our maturity
as a country to see this into place.
AO: You can understand the confusion and the cynicism though can't you,
especially among Aboriginal people. I mean they think, iook the Labor
Government has been in there ten years now, we haven't realy got
anywhere with land rights at all, nothings happened, It's only happening
now because the High Court has put us In a bit of a pickle, put you in a bit
of a pickle, with the Mabo decision. And it's the first real test that comes
along, McArthur River. Well, they go down again, the miners interests are
put first, and they're not even consulted.
PM: It's not really like that. The Aboriginal people themselves made clear to us
that they are prepared to validate titles issued after 1975. Now, the
problem with McArthur River was, there was a project to begin, it needed
the title validated. The Northern Territory Government sald it wouldn't
revive the title. In other words, the title was extinguished. It Issued a
mining right and extinguished forever and always the title. We'e said as
a Commonwealth Govemnment, we reserve the right in the future to revive
that title, after the mining Is complete, so that native title won't be lost.
AO: Will that have to go to a State Tribunal, which has been flagged, or not?
PM: No. Well, that legislation now lays on the table and before its passage
there's an opportunity for the Aboriginal community to negotiate just terms
about the use of that land. And I got a letter from the Northern Land
Council today. which made that point clear.
AO: We did too. They didn't sound too happy in the letter.
PM: No, It says this negotiatons regarding compensation and a just terms
agreement should, as each of the parties has recently stated, continue a
pace pending the passage of the Bill. So, In other words, they've got a
chance to negotiate just terms. We're protecting under our caveat, the
revival of the title, but what we are doing, Is In the Northern Territory
passing the law, validating the title, which means the project proceeds.
Now, Andrew, were the project not to proceed, you could Imagine the
noise which would be around. People would be saying, well, here's Mabo
at its first blush a $ 300 million project hits the fence. You'd have the worst
elements of conservative interests In this country up there blaggarding the
Mabo decision and all it stands for. So, what we're doing, Is doing no
more than the Aboriginal community offered us, that Is, the validation of
these titles, protecting its revival, allowing a discussion about just terms,
getting it off the stocks so It doesn't complicate the broader Mabo
principles.
AO: Well, that maybe what you're doing, but what they're saying, of course, is
it's the other way round. Look, a $ 300 million project comes along and
suddenly these proclaimed rights of ours go out the window,
PM: Again, It depends how the media responds to this. When Coronation Hill
was on, they said this Is terrible.
AO: Is this the pay back for Coronation Hill?
PM: No, the Government has taken a political approach. It should have taken
an analytical approach. When the Government takes an analytical
approach on McArthur River, they say you should have taken a political
approach. I mea n, you can't do It right, In fact, In terms of Aboriginal
Interests In this country, In terms of getting acceptance of a set of
principles for establishing native title and dealing with native title, McArthur
River threatened the prospects of that happening needlessly, In the event
that it failed. So, validating the leases, protecting the revival of the title,
and giving the Aboriginal community time to negotiate lust terms, in my
view, treats Aboriginal interests appropriately, and properly, but
Importantly, lets get on with the ma~ n discussion about Mabo and not
having it sidetracked by a project not proceeding.
AO: It's effectively an emergency that blew up before you could sort everything
out, But how many more McArthur Rivers might there be before it Is
sorted out?
12
PM: Well, they'll be some I suppose. But as I Said, this will test.,
AO: And all be treated the same way?
PM: No, because once the principles are in place, then what'll happen Is, they'll
negotiate. A proponent will negotiate with the Aboriginal community and
they'll arrive at terms for mining through procedural fairness. There will be
a procedure procedural fairness as required under the Racial
Discrimination Act, and there'll be compensation. But by then, there will
be a structure in place. The problem at the moment Is, there is no
structure In place. And were we to let McArthur River fall, the people
opposed to Aboriginal Interests in this country, would have banged the
drum so loudly that I'm quite sure upon reflection, the Aborinal
community would have said we would have been better dispensing with
this one properly.
AO: The-Republ. Lc another drum that you've been banging. Is it a certainty
for the Year 2000, or have you still got a lot of wori to do?
PM: I think there's a lot of work to do with it. But I think the procedure we've
set up for a Committee to look at options for a competent change to a
republic, so at least we all know what we're speaking of. I mean, the
problem at the moment is, It doesn't matter who you are as a
commentator, there are no pieces of paper about what constitutes a
change to a republic of any variety. The point of the Committee headed
by Mr Turnbull is to produce those models, so that at least we'll know what
models we're working in, and people can say, well, a change of this varety
I can support, a change of that variety I couldn't support. And In this first
Instance, at least we'll start to track the course. After that, of course, it's a
matter of whether we have constitutional conventions, Involve the States
and other parties.
AO: Can it happen without the support of the Liberals?
PM; I Well, I prefer that it didn't.
AO: But could it happen without that?
PM: It could happen, but I think it would be better if the Liberals recognise the
fact that their involvement In this process can lead to a more harmonious
and competent change.
AO: So how can you get them across the line? How can you get people like
John Howard and Jeff Kennett to see It your way?
PMV: Well, I think a lot of people In the Liberal Party do.
AO: But those two don't.
" 4I -U I
13
PMV: I know, that's true. And I have said to them that we will give the Uberal
Party time to come to an opinion about this, and that we don't necessarily
want to have only our name on the makers label. That we're quite happy
to have theires there too. But I think the first phase Is Important, and
people can see what is involved in a quite minimal change to the
Constitution.
AO: Can you resist the temptation though Paul Keating the great politician
can he resist the temptation to use this to divide the Liberals, to keep
dividing the Liberals, rather than going for the unity which would certainly
make it a lot easier to work?
PM: Well, I'm Interested in the change rather than worrying about the Liberal
Party. There are plenty of other issues we can deal with the Liberal Party
on.
AO: But how can you convince them of the bona fides then?
PM: Well, I think that just by our actions. That is, I've Invited a fairly broad
committee, a number of people on the conservative side of politics or the
community are on that committee. And once the models are established
I'm quite sure there will be an Informed debate about what constitutes a
minimal change, whether they think there should be change to the reserve
powers, what's the mode of election, should the Head of State be
nominated by the Government, should they be endorsed by the
Parliament, should it have a fixed term. All of these Issues will be
debated, and we can come up what the community thinks is a reasonable
change.
AO: Mr Keating, you'd be very conscious of the television series coming up
next week on Labor in Power, In which you and a number of your
colleagues have been extremely frank, perhaps, on the premise that you
might not have won the election that we've just had.
PM: No, no,
AO: Are you worried they've been too frank?
PM: No. Look, this notion that we've been frank because we might not have
won the election.
AO: Well, why have you been so frank?
PMV: This has been talked up by Phillip Chubb, and good on him, the Producer
of the series. Look, anything I've said In this program I would have been
happy to say win, lose or draw. And I noticed on the weekend In the
Sydney Morning Herald, Alan Ramsey amongst others, had an article on
this, and he's got quotes from these Interviews, and the notion that what
have we got here. V/ ha it Is, is big boys and big girls behaving like they
are.
AO: But hang on. You'e got the Deputy Prime Minister, your current Deputy
Prime Minister, Brian Howe, using words about you like betrayal. And
Robert Rays statlng quote * constantly carping al every meeting and
every sczial c~ casion. Constantly bagging Hawke, Constantly leakin to
the Pres Gallery, trolling upstairs with the latest story to hurt Hawke.
That Is destabilis-ation of the worst and most disloyal kind." He's one of
your Senior Ministers.
PM: I think he was referrg there I haven't seen the series but I think you'll
find he is referring there notionally to my supporters.
AO: We think you.
PM: Well, I don't know. It may be me, but I don't know. But I think Robert is
happy tucked away back there In the Government. I mean, we're back
there, that's all thzt matters. But the idea that it's being told as it is, Is
shocking. I mean, really.
AO: Well, it is unusually frank. As you say, you would have said it anyway
because you're the Leader, but some of these people are looking for jobs
from you, looking for your favour.
PM: Look, again, It's back In history, And I think what does motivate most
people in public life is what they have on their plate right at the moment,
and their aspiralions for change. And this Cabinet has I think a very
healthy approach in that respect. I think a lot of this stuff just slips into the
past.
AO: Well, it does go to an Issue at stake at the moment. It's come up a lot
since the election anyway. And that Is, your style of Leadership, which Is
certainly very different from the consensus style of. Mr Hawke' You are,
suppose, much dominating, much more interventionist, power centred on
what's already been dubbed the oval office, and that you've promoted
really only your supporlers In the Ministry. Are you really Interested in
putting an incredibly firm grip on this Government, it's you and that's it?
PM: I don't think that's a fair description Andrew. I mean, some of this come~ s
from the Press Galery. But look, I took the opportunity with this election
to try and re-make the Ministry. And the younger and newer people who
have joined it will give the Labor Government a new lease on life that it
might not have otherwise had.
AO: There's some merit In that, but It also will require your stronger hand of
guidance, won't it?
PM: Welt, I think that energy that you get from now members joining the
Minr" and Cablnet, and paicuariy, yourgar newer members, Is te sort
of energy I think a Government needs. And I cho-se those people on their
abiltes. And I think they're already showing their ability. But as far as
consultation go-as, I can only say to you that I think the Cabinet process
since December 1991 has been a very happy one. The meeting talks
Issues through. Now, since the elecdon we've got a committee proess
Into place, so some of the issues go off to committees and they come
back to the Cabinet and the debate is truncated, so there is less
discussion. But the whole process Is a pretty fiendly and discursive one.
AO: But again, if I can go back to that Labor In Power series. Gareth Evans I
think it was made the point in that, that under the Hawke style the best
was drawn out of the Ministers, because they were expected to contribute
a lot to this consensus style of Government. That perhaps you will be
sitting on top of Ministers much more?
PM: No. My attitude is, you let Ministers make their own pace provided the
generaJ direction is one where the whole Government Is heading. That Is,
provided the direction Is one which is basically not ultra vires of the policy.
I don't think it's healthy for Prime Ministers to be trying to run the detail of
portfolios. I don't think you should do that. But by the same token, it is
Important in meetings, at the right time, for the Prime Minister to have a
view, But I don't think I tend to choke off debate by putting a view. I tend
to let people have their say.
AO: You don't brook opposition lightly tugh, do you? Can I put it to you, that
you have a habit of really crushing quite ruthlessly opposition at times? I
mean, Kim Beazicy Is said to have never fully recovered from the
-savaging you gave him during the telecommunications debate, And even
you have acknowledged on this program, when we were talng about
Labor In Power, that you went too far.
PM: Well, I think In terms of the poilcy I was correct.
AO: But you lost.
PM: But I lost It, But we did in the end, all of us, cobble together nevertheless
a good policy.
AC: Is there a problem though when you do think you're correct that it's very
hard to shake you from It? That you have this fixation about staying the
course, not losing your nerve?
PM: Because the place never had a break in nearly a quarter of a century. I
mean, the place was Inhabited with politicians who wouldn't stay to
anything. it was just a flim flarn place run by the bureaucracy for most of
the post-war years. The reason it has now made the change to a different
culture, a different sort of society, Is because It's had Ministers who've
meant what they were doing.
AO: Yes, but I'm talng about you and your colleagues, your Ministerial
colleagues, who you will take on and stand up to eye to eye and that's it. I
mean, If you really decide to go for something nothing wiil move you?
PM: Yes, it does, arguments move me. If a Minister is doing a good job, and
he's got a good case, that's fine. I think the notion that I've got a very
Interventionist style In the Cabinet is wrong. And this is a view that floats
around the place perhaps from the hectic days of the 80s. I let Ministers
talk, but in the end, we do bring it to a conclusion. I don't believe in
aimless meetings where I sit mum trying to let a consensus develop for
fear of showing my hand, That I reject as a style of leadership.
AO: Perhaps we're talking about two Paul Keating's? Perhaps, there are two
Paul Keatings? One who is a cynical..
PM: I'm much softer than you think.
AO: There are two sides to this Keating coin I suggest to you. One is the
cynical powerbroker who will resort to just about anything and force his
way through. The other is, at times quite sensitive in some of the
speeches you've made. I'm sure at times even charming, and quite highly
focussed, and desperately trying to think ahead, no doubt about that. But
can you understand, why people find it very hard to get a fix on you? That
they're rather divided over your merits as well, because there are the-se
two people. Which one Is right?
PM: Yes, well, I'm a mixture of things. I am, by and large, I think, nice to
people. I try and draw the best from them, and I stick with them often, or I
help them. Now occasionally, you'li get to the point where you're going to
have a difference of view, and so I'll exercise a view then. I did when I
was Treasurer, and I do as Prime Minister. But this is not in this Cabinet,
a very heavily Interventionist style by me, and I think Ministers would think
that. But these sort of myths spring around. Now, I'm not saying that I'm
some sort of wishy washy sort of character that doesn't have a view. Of
course I have a view. But again, so do Ministers. And I think Ministers
ought to be you choose Ministers, you give them a job, and you let them
go and do it, by and large. And they'll come and ask you, do you think this
Is right, or do you think we should do that, and that's fine, I'll give them a
view. But by and large I let them run. But If it gets to a point where It Is a
problem with direction you've got to have a say, and that's the Prime
Minister's lob.
ENDS