23/ 07 ' 93 15: 57 e06 273 2923 PM PRESS OFFICE Q~ 001
PRIME MINISTER
ADDRESS BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THU R0n P. J. EATING, NP
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, CANBERRA, 22 JULY 1993
It is a pleasure as usual to be here, even for the
nineteenth time.
I thought I should come along and be re-assured that I
exist. I was a pretty sure I did; my colleagues assured
me, the numerous people with whom I have been consulting,
the people on talkback, the people on committees, the
Chinese, the Koreans, various Heads of State. They all
seemed happy with the degree of my visibility.
But I should have remembered the old maxim I speak at
the National Press Club therefore I am.
Let me begin with a quotation from a very familiar
source. When King George VI died Robert Gordon Menzies made the
following observation:
The death of the King has once more reminded us that
our great Commonwealth is united, not by legal
bonds, not by the Crown as an abstract notion, not
by fine-spun constitutional theories, but by a
common and all-powerful human emotion which discards
form and penetrates instantly to the substantial
truth.
It is not very often that I quote the words of Bob
Menzies. My opponents do it enough for all of us.
The Liberal Party is like a hound which cannot be induced
to leave its master's grave. It is always scratching
around in the dust for a hint, an indication, some sign
which will tell them who they are, and what they stand
for, and what they should do next.
But I agree with what Bob Menzies said in this instance.
2
I agree that what unites a nation or a Commonwealth
has less to do with the law than with feelings held in
common. 9
Menzies developed a very similar philosophy about the
Queen. He took her extraordinarily popular visit in 1954
to be evidence that Australians' affection for her " was
one of the most powerful elements converting them from a
mass of individuals to a great cohesive nation."
I agree with him there too.
I agree that there is such a thing as national sentiment
and that it is a powerful force in the shaping of a
nation, in the cohesion of a nation, in the success of a
nation. I agree that in the 1950s and for a surprisingly long
time afterwards Australia's unity with Britain was built
on something more than friendship it was built on an
implicit sense of unity, on an instinct.
And I agree that in 1954 the Throne of England, and in
particular the new Queen, constituted a considerable
element of Australia's national sentiment.
I agree with all this. I think more national sentiment is
what we need now, and more unity, and cohesion.
We need it because the old affections are not there in
the same way.
Even though there is widespread affection for the
monarch, there is simply not the same affection for the
monarchy. Our relationship with Britain has changed irreversibly
as irreversibly as our culture and the composition of our
people has changed.
We are a very different country in a very different
world, faced with entirely new challenges which will have
to be met in entirely new ways.
In Asia and the Pacific we have opportunities of a kind
we have never been offered before.
To grasp them I believe we need a new sense of unity a
new kind of national sentiment.
And in 1993 it can only come from one place. From
Australia from the democracy, from shared values,
shared aspirations, from the necessities we face.
I have been saying it for some time now: we need a sense
of common purpose, of fellow feeling the things which
will both inspire Australians and bind them together.
And if you could transport Bob Menzies from the era in
which he lived, and put him down in this one with all the
necessities it imposes on us, and all the opportunities,
I am pretty sure he would say the same.
We cannot expect to change the direction of our trade and
commerce, adapt to the revolutionary changes in the
processes of production and the nature of work and to the
equally radical changes in the global economy without
cultural change.
We cannot expect to live in this new era with the
institutions, symbols and attitudes of an old one.
We cannot find our place in this new world without
finding and cementing the common ground among ourselves.
These are not radical ideas. They are common-sense ideas
pragmatic ideas.
Let me say it again, if only for John Howard's sake: many
of the things which bound together the Australians of
Menzies, era are either irrelevant or no longer on offer.
In fact there is something much better on offer: there is
the chance to make good in our region, which is the
fastest growing in the world; and to do it on our own, by
our own collective initiative and genius.
In the last decade of the twentieth century the chance
exists for this generation of Australians to set
Australia up for the DeA century.
That is why last year I made a deliberate decision to
depart from the usual overseas travel priorities of
Prime Ministers by concentrating first on Australia's
main regional relationships.
So, as you know, I went to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea,
Japan, Singapore, Cambodia.
And this year to New Zealand, Korea and China.
To our regional partners I wanted to underline
Australia's credentials as an economic and political
player in the Asia-Pacific; to emphasise our commitment
to economic engagement in the region; and to strengthen
our voice in regional affairs.
To the Australian public, I wanted to underline the
enormous benefits that will accrue to our country through
closer economic integration with the region.
During the 1980s the countries of North-East and South-
East Asia grew twice as fast as the rest of the world.
During the 1990s they seem likely to easily repeat that
performance.
But one of the main messages I wanted to impress in Korea
and elsewhere in Asia, is that Australia is very well
placed to expand our exports of technology-based goods
and services.
And in both Korea and China there was concrete evidence
that the expansion and diversification of our trade is
already gathering pace.
The radical reform and continuing growth of the Chinese
economy are providing numerous opportunities for
Australian companies and, as you know, I was able to
witness a number of joint venture signings between
Australia and Chinese enterprises.
The Chinese leaders made it clear that they were
interested in a long-term strategic relationship with
Australia in the development of the Chinese steel and
woollen textile industries.
At my discussions in Korea and China there was agreement
to strengthen the government-based mechanisms which
support these important economic relationships for
Australia. And our Trade Minister, Peter Cook, will
follow with visits to both countries in September.
I went to Indonesia last year with great enthusiasm.
in the course of that trip and my subsequent ones to
other East Asian countries the enthusiasm has become
conviction. I came away from Korea and China last month more than
ever convinced of the enormous potential the East Asian
economies provide for Australian business and therefore
the potential for Australia's future our integration with
the region holds.
I came away more convinced of this, and more convinced of
the potential of APEC.
The Korean and Chinese leaders very much agree with our
view about the importance of ensuring that the economies
of North America and the Western Pacific be locked
together in one great and dynamic market.
Since my return, of course, President Clinton has issued
his invitation to host an APEC leaders meeting in Seattle
this November.
President Clinton's announcement is very good news for
Australia. It opens up an historic opportunity to
promote the economic integration of the Asia-Pacific
region in a way that serves the interest of all members.
It is important that the process of Asia-Pacific economic
cooperation provides genuine benefits not only to the
advanced economies of the United States and Japan, but
also to the rapidly developing economies of South East
Asia. If the Seattle APEC leaders meeting goes ahead as
proposed and I am fairly confident that it will it
will put Australia at a table which really matters:
the APEC economies account for half the world's
output and forty per cent of world exports
three quarters of Australia's exports now go to the
APEC region
Establishing a process of periodic leaders' meetings will
greatly increase the status and authority of APEC a
forum which, of course, Australia was instrumental in
creating and has helped define and promote ever since.
The process is necessarily long-term. But this is the
best evidence of progress towards that goal, and the best
possible spur for further progress.
There is, then, this extraordinary opportunity for
Australia. We should not overestimate the speed with which the
process will occur. But it is even more essential not to
underestimate the chance it gives us.
It is essential that we are positive in our approach to
it. And essential that we find the common purpose and
collective will to grasp it.
It is essential that we find the national unity our
effort will require.
Most of you will know that famous story about Menzies
which got him into a bit of trouble at the time: how he
came back from Britain in 1941 and said to the waiting
press how despondent he felt upon returning to all the
local petty politicking.
I love politicking I think it is how the democracy
advances but when I came back from China last month I
think I had an inkling of what he experienced.
I thought here is this fantastic opportunity for
Australia, an historic opportunity to which the whole
national effort really should be turned.
But what do we hear?
23/ 07 ' 93 16: 02 006 273 2923 PM PRESS OFFICEApart
from the usual healthy and not-so-healthy cynicism
we always hear, we hear in the debate over the Mabo
judgement a mad retreat to parochialism and petty self
interest. We hear politicians playing to the lowest denominator of
public opinion.
We hear deliberate misinformation and the encouragement
of outright bigotry.
All this on an issue of fundamental importance, not only
to the Australian economy, but to the values on which
Australian democracy, the Australian ethos, and
Australia's reputation abroad are built.
There has been an element of mischievous and ill-informed
journalism in the Mabo debate. But the primary
debilitating role-has been played by the Opposition.
Tim Fischer goes to Hong Kong and assures his audience
that there is nothing to fear. In Hong Kong he tells the
truth. But in Australia he tells the people that they
will lose their backyards. In Australia he tries to whip
up fear and panders to the worst feelings in the
community. Yet, we expect this from the National Party. Paranoia and
parochialism is to the National Party what grass is to
sheep and goats.
But the party which has Most failed Australia on the Mabo
debate is the Liberal Party. Confronted with a great
national issue which needed, above all others in recent
times, a great deal of good will and good feeling and a
concerted search for consensus, the Liberal Party chose
to foster ill-will and ill-feeling. They chose the role
of spoiler.
And the chief spoiler has been Dr Heweon. Not only has
he refused to distance himself or ta-ke'issue with
outrageous comments from people like Tim Fischer and Hugh
Moqrgan, he has actually joined the little company who
claim that people's homes are at risk. Dr Hewson knows
that they are not.
Last month we saw him on national television talking
about what he called " massive uncertainty" " are titles
secure, is your home secure, your mine secure, your farm
secure?", he asked.
Dr Hewson knows the answer to these questions is
unequivocally " Yes".
Mabo calls for something much better than this. It calls
for nothing more or less than a mature national response.
23/ 07 ' 03 16: 03 -006 273 2923 PM PRESS OFFICE I0
7
The High Court judgement entailed recognition that the
fiction of terra nullius was indeed a fiction; that
native title, where it had not been extinguished,
continued to exist; and that the appalling treatment of
Aboriginal Australians did in fact occur.
It is hardly revelatory. In essence it recognises what we
have long known to be true.
The Mabo judgement places great responsibilities upon us,
but it seems to me these responsibilities create the
opportunity to set right some aspect. of Australian life
which have long been wrong. it offers a chance to raise
the level of dignity on both sides.
And these responsibilities are no greater than the
responsibilities which the United States, New Zealand and
Canada all confronted last century. These countries
faced up to their responsibilities while they were still
in their infancy.
I am one of those who believes that in our maturity we
too can meet our responsibilities that we can make a
mature national judgement.
It must be a national response: the entire continent was
declared terra nullius; native title was denied
everywhere; the abuses occurred in all the states.
The need to find solutions is a national need. If the
word " Australia" still means, as I believe it does, a
belief in democracy and social justice, if that remains
the national sentiment, then a just national solution
must be found.
From the first Cabinet discussion a year ago, the
Government has seen as the nub of the matter finding a
rational reconciliation of two imperatives: the certainty
about land tenure which a resource-based economy requires
and the discharge of our deep obligations to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people whose legal rights have
been granted them by the highest court in the land.
We have been determined that it must be a reconciliation
managed by Governments rather than left to the fate of
protracted conflict and unpredictable litigation.*
We have moved as quickly as possible. Mabo amounts to
the biggest change in Australian land law since we became
a nation. That is why I announced last October that we
would be taking a year to consult on the issues, consider
them carefully and formulate our policy.
I remind you that during the election campaign the Leader
of the Opposition supported the process and the
timetable.
23/ 07 ' 9 18: 04 WS I_ M72 93P PRESS OFFICE
I will not attend now to any of the shrill and irrational
charges that have been made in the course of the debate.
As for the charge that the States have been browbeaten, I
won't go back over the twists and turns of discussion and
drafting that went on at the COAG meeting in June.
But if it is browbeating the State. to ask them to accept
one of the most important-and positive decisions the High
Court has ever taken if it is browbeating the States to
ask them to do more than simply pocket a Commonwealth
offer to validate their grants and pick up the entire
compensation bill if it is browbeating the States to
ask that effective mechanisms be established to determine
native title claims, and that laws be updated to
recognise and protect native title and if it is
browbeating the States to get them to understand that
Mabo has a significance well beyond the nitty gritty of
land management then the States have been browbeaten.
And the Government will not waver from its view of Mabo
as a national issue requiring a national response.
At our initiative, consultations have been held with the
States since last year, in every State capital and in
multilateral meetings the work has continued since COAG.
I reiterate what I have said to the Premiers and Chief
Ministers: in dealing with the land management
challenges posed by tMabo, our preferred course is
complementary legislation, cooperatively achieved.
That does not mean we will accept the lowest common
denominator, or will fail to establish appropriate
national standards and mechanisms for dealing with native
title. If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have one
overriding request of the Government it is that the
Commonwealth set the benchmarks. And this we will do.
As we work on legislation, we are going to keep the lines
of communication open to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander representatives, to representatives of industry
and to others. The political heat of the issue will not
deflect us from that sound, deliberative, consultative
course on which we embarked last October.
The legislation we will introduce in the. Budget sittings
will make Mabo work. It will demonstrate that native
title is not incompatible with efficient land management
or with the national economic interest.
Dr Hewson made another contribution to the Mabo debate
yesterday. He said that Mabo threatened to lead to
recession.
23/ 07 9i3 006 917 PM PRESS OFF 005
9
Dr Hewuon appears unable to live without recessions.
When he doesn't have one, he conjures one up. Late last
year, you will remember, he said that the recession was
deepening. Double dipping. Then he said that we were on
the verge of a depression.
Dr Hewson has also been talking about how the Government
must not " go beyond" Mabo, as if it is possible to
deliver a complete response without paying regard to the
wider implications of the judgement.
Let me say that it is not " going beyond" Mabo:
to see how the decision, by sweeping aside the
doctrine of terra nullius, also sweeps aside the
foundation of the dispossession of the indigenous
Australians or to note that the decision itself talks of
Aboriginal dispossession as having underwritten the
development of Australia
or to consider then what might be done for those who
have been dispossessed
or to consider also how the apprehensions of landbased
industries and the hopes of Aboriginal people
for economic improvement might both be addressed by
giving the latter a greater sense of involvement in
industry
or to recognise, as the High Court has now done,
Aboriginal customary law and traditions as a source
of Australian common law
or to recognise why, therefore, the Mabo decision
can be seen as a major contribution to the social,
cultural and economic standing of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people with the potential to
establish a new basis for the relationship between
indigenous and other Australians
None of these aims exceed our capacities as a community
and a nation: none of them exceeds our democratic or
social aspiration. They are, I believe, consistent with
our values and beliefs.
The spoilers, no less than the bigots, should know that.
And they should know that no amount of sophistry, or
denial, or lies will deliver us from the truth. None of
it will help Australia escape judgement in the eyes of
the world. And none of it is needed.
What we do need and what we will have is a workable
solution that will actually improve the quality of our
national life, which will build up the values we hold in
common, and nourish the reconciliation process.
-j/ 07 ' 93* 16: 08 006 273 2923 PM PRESS OFIC -a 006
And there is no doubt that we would be considerably
closer to this solution if the Liberal Party had not
decided that it was in their interest to subvert the
national interest.
But, in fact, as Judith Brett wrote the other day, the
Liberal Party is " philosophically bankrupt". They no
longer have any idea how to address those things which
their founder understood instinctively the need for
unity, the importance of social values, the essential
role of a responsible political party to find the means
by which a society can cohere around common principles
and aspirations.
The Liberal Party, the alternative government, has
comprehensively lost its way. This is a fact which in
some circumstances might give the Labor Party comfort,
but there is no comfort for any Australian in their
present behaviour.
And there is little prospect of their improving. Having
just lost an election, they number among their leadership
aspirants the man who contributed more than any other to
the loss.
And having lost it on a Thatcherite program, they allow
to be a contender a politician who, in an embarrassingly
transparent imitation of Mrs Thatcher before she
mellowed, said the other day that government should be
" Poor", and " the laws of the free market are as immutable
as the laws of gravity".
Among their youth two of their brighter sparks are avowed
monarchists. The former Hewson adviser, now Hewsonhater,
Abbott; and the Melbourne lawyer, Costello.
Abbott and Costello lead the youthful wing of the Liberal
Party, along with the likes of the Member for Menzies
who, to judge from an article in The Aae the other day,
makes the man after whom his seat is named look like an
Irish rebel.
But no one is more culpable in the present fiasco which
is the Liberal Party than the bloke who only six months
ago was still believed to be their hope for the future.
In what appears to be a sort of penance for his sins, he
now tramps around the country saying things he doesn't
believe or he knows to be untrue.
It is well known, for instance, that privately John
Hewson will tell you Australia must move on to be a
republic. But unlike the Greiners and the Faheys and Sir
Rupert Hamer and many other leading Liberals, he will not
say so. He will not lead. He does not have the courage
of his convictions.
23/ 07 ' 03 16: 07 0& 06 273 29 3
The man who just last year
is so reduced he will not er
republic and discourages the
between Aboriginal and white
extraordinary grounds that k~
Keating' s ambitions. PM PRESS Ovpk'' 007_
ras touted as a visionary now
igage with the debate on the
goal of reconciliation
Australia on the quite
Le will not cater to Paul
The nation's ambitions apparently no longer enter into Dr
Hewson's political equation.
Nothing will persuade Dr Hewson that economics cannot be
divorced from social policy, that our economic
performance depends in considerable part on the strength
of our social bonds and on the development of a uniting
spirit. That our success in Asia will depend on these things as
well. I think it is safe to say that Australian business
understands what the political Opposition fails to.
Business knows that in the end it will not be the
Australian Government which carries the day in the Asia-
Pacific. It will be business.
It will not be Government which ultimately carries the
day in Australia. It will be business. Business, unions,
the workforce: public and private institutions, schools
and universities, communities, individuals.
In the end it will be, as I said, the quality of our
national effort which determines our success.
That is what increasingly impresses me in Asia the
number of Australian initiatives which are succeeding.
it is what increasingly impresses me here. It's what
impressed McKinsey in the survey of 700 new exporters.
We will help business up wherever we can. We won't be
shutting down the economy as some people are saying we
should. We'll do what we can to sustain demand.
But once it gets going we'll get out of the way.
Right now it is particularly important that governments
get the broad parameters of economic policy right.
To generate investment and jobs Commonwealth and State
Governments must get their budgets right: they must
support the economy in the short run by providing a
stimulus to spending; but they have to able to show that
in the medium term deficits will be scaled back to allow
private saving to be used to fund business investment.
We cannot allow our private savings to be used solely to
fund big budget deficits.
23/ 07 ' 93 18: 09 -BOO 273 2923PMPESOIT 0O
12
We have to have more business investment and we have to
free up our private savings to pay for it.
This is what we did in the 1980. when we built up those
big budget surpluses. I
More recently, the Treasurer, the National Fiscal Outlook
and the Fitzgerald Report have reinforced this simple
point. In the medium term, big budget deficits are not
consistent with a strong economy.
That is why the Government is committed to reducing the
budget deficit to 1 per cent of GDP by 1996-97; and why
we are aiming for a budget deficit of around $ 16 billion
this year.
The economy has been recovering for seven consecutive
quarters but, while the medium term looks good, the
process has been stubbornly slow.
We can be thankful that with more and more of our trade
in the Asia-Pacific we are not so dependent on the OECD
economies to sustain our export growth.
But sluggish growth in the OECD area has inevitably made
it difficult for us in Australia.
There are some forecasters suggesting that the GDP growth
in 1993-94 might be little different from 92-93.
Private consumption conceivably could weaken.
The economy could therefore do with the stimulus this
financial year that the One Nation tax cuts are scheduled
to bring next year.
on the other hand, because inflation is much lower, the
One Nation tax cuts are now more generous than they were
intended to be when they were announced in February 1992.
It is for these two reasons that the Government is
considering how the One Nation tax cuts can be best put
into place best for the economy and best for taxpayers.
The tax cuts now legislated are to be paid in two parts
one in July 1994 and the second in January 1996.
we are now in the process of considering the extent to
which the first leg can be brought forward to boost the
economy, and the second put back to secure the savings
task in the interim.
23/ 07 ' 93 .18: 10 1008 273 2923 PM PRESS OFFICE Qh009
13
As I said earlier, when the tax cuts were announced in
February 1992, they were intended to encompass fiscal
drag. The subsequent better performance on inflation now
implies that they are substantially more than fiscal drag
substantially more than was intended.
Delaying the introduction of the second leg will bring
the tax cuts backs into line with what was intended and
announced in February 1992 while still seeing the tax
cuts paid.
In this way the incidence of income tax will not rise,
savings will be boosted, and the economy will receive a
fillip at a time when it's still needed.
These tax cuts will be delivered in full this financial
year. They will be L A W law.
And what is more, they are R E S P 0 N S I B L E
responsible law.
I began by talking about Australia's national values; or,
if you like, this system of belief which unites us.
I have said before that this a country which has got its
basic values right.
Those values remain, by and large, democratic,
egalitarian, tolerant and far more than before open.
But I do think we need to be more generally aware of
them, and they should be reflected more obviously in our
national symbols and institutions.
I think as Australia changes and old affections
inevitably fade it is essential that we get these things
right for future generations.
It seems to me that there is no better recent evidence of
the need for this than the Mabo debate particularly
where it has been led by our conservative opponents.
In the end, however, I am supremely confident that the
better instincts of the vast majority of Australians will
prevail. I recognise, just the same, that none of this can be
divorced from our economic performance our ability to
provide long term security and prosperity.
That, despite the slow recovery, is now on offer as never
before. It is what the government, and a great many
Australians, have been seeking for some time.
There are profound reasons to believe we will succeed
and in the end nothing will be more important than belief
itself.