NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA LIMITED
A. C. N. 009 071 167
SUITE 114 PRESS GALLERY PARLIAMENT HOUSE
CANBERRA A. C. T. 2600 AUSTRALIA
TELEPHONE: ( 06) 273 3300 FACSIMILE: ( 06) 273 3097
WIN TV SUNDAY 0940 05.12.93
Subject: INV Prime Minister Paul Keating
Compere ( Jim Waley):
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: As we've already heard, the Malaysian Government line
seems to be hardening in the row over Paul Keating's
choice of words to describe Prime Minister Mahathir.
A letter from Mr Keating, explaining he meant no
offence, has been rejected as not conciliatory and now
there are reports that the Malaysian Cabinet will
consider downgrading the relationship with Australia.
This latest threat was made public last night after
Sunday's Political Editor, Laurie Oakes, recorded this
interview in Canberra with Prime Minister Keating.
Prime Minister, the first issue I wanted to talk about,
obviously; is Malaysia. Dr Mahathir has rejected your
letter. What's your response?
Oh, I don't know that he rejected the letter. I think he
just said that it was not as conciliatory as he expected it.
But the one clear message in it is I mean, it's an
honest, frank letter but the one clear message in it is that
what I said was not calculated to offend him, and that's
true. So, therefore no offence was intended and I hope
he accepts therefore that none was taken.
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes: Well, he said last night that it did give offence. Do you
regret that, even though you didn't intend it, do you
regret that he took offence?
Well, if my remarks were not intended to offend him
and he has taken offence at it, well naturally one would
regret that. But they were said in the context which, at
the time, made it fairly clear that there were some issues
of difference between us and I've always got to argue,
and will of course, for Australia's policy positions.
Have you done all you can now or will you try and
make contact again?
No, I think what I have done is very reasonable. That
is, I've written to him, putting in some sort of context
I mean, there is not much point in writing letters saying
' Dear Prime Minister, under the tail plane in the Boeing
747, I had this to say', and not provide any cofitext, and
I've put some context-there but made clear that the
remarks were not designed to offend. The remarks were
made to say ' look, this is not my matter'. That is
whether Dr Mahathir attends APEC meetings or decides,
as he put it, to thumb his nose at people, is for him.
That was the point of the remark.
Although you obviously didn't apologise in this letter, is
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes: it fair to say that you're sorry that he's offended?
Laurie, look I've made it quite clear. I represent
Australia's national interest. We have interests, I was
asked by journalists and I've been asked persistently for
months about Dr Mahathir's attending of these meetings.
On the day I was asked, what prompted the question was
his remark saying that his policy was to thumb his nose
to people and that was his best way of being noticed. It
was in that context I said ' please don't ask me about
Dr Mahathir. It's not my matter and that APEC's larger
than any one of us, including those who seek to thumb
their nose at people.' That's what I was really saying.
It was not, I don't think, offensive or calculated to
offend. Now, that's what I have told Dr Mahathir quite
clearly but look, we want to put a line under the
relationship, Laurie and get on with it. Now, I've got
Senator Cook and Senator Ray going there this week. I
mean, it's very tangible evidence on our part. We want
to keep the relationship going and on a good footing. I
think there are substantial opportunities in the economic
developments between Australia and Malaysia. This has
always been our view and, you know, we want to try
and maintain that kind of momentum.
Dr Hewson says that you should now pick up the phone
and talk to Dr Mahathir personally. Is there any point
in that?
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: Well, I don't think so. I think I've said what I wanted
to say but, you know, one the Federal Opposition
saying in the first instance they could understand my
remarks and then, as late as yesterday, Dr Hewson was
running around saying I should get on the phone and do
this and do that. Well, I mean, they should make their
mind up what they meant. I mean, I'm sure their first
response was right. That was that they could understand
my remarks and Australia does have a position of
substance on these various issues between Australia and
Malaysia and I've put those. But again, hopefully in the
context of a good ongoing relationship.
Since you've been Prime Minister, you've stressed the
need for Australia to engage more heavily in Asia.
Now, how does this row affect that?
Well, I mean, I don't think it does. I mean, we have
had spats with Malaysia before on other issues, or more
particularly, Malaysia's had spats with us on other
issues. I have a very good relationship with-President
Sohato, I've a very good relationship with Prime
Minister Go Chok Chong(?), I've an equally good
relationship with President Kim Yung Sam(?) and I
would like such a relationship with Prime Minister
Mahathir but he's got to want it to. Malaysia's got to
want to have a relationship with Australia of the kind
Australia's prepared to have with it.
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes: If the worst happens and there are more sanctions, more
retaliation from the Malaysian side, does Australia have
any way of hitting back? I mean, could we engage in a
fit for tat fight with them on this level?
Well, I don't think we would like to. That's the point.
We would prefer a constructive relationship to continue.
But what about those 5 power arrangements? I mean, is
that something that we could pull out of if we took
offence? Well, I mean, defence agreements are fairly solemn
things and, of course, they exist because countries
regard each other's sovereignty as important enough to
defend and that means keeping core relationships going.
Now, I think everybody in that arrangement, including
Malaysia, understands the importance of keeping the
relationships going. Australia certainly does.
But if there's a freeze on the Malaysian side, r mean, is
there any point in having a defence relationship like
that? Well, I think this is premature to be talking about this,
Laurie. Well, the reason I raise it is that when we had the last
spat you mentioned in ' 91 over the Embassy television
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: -series, Gareth Evans did make some recommendations
about this to the then Prime Minister. Bob Hawke took
a different view and he decided instead to apologise, but
presumably that kind of recommendation is still there for
you to look at.
Well, I'm not aware of that, to be honest. Thank you
for the research.
But you haven't looked at that yourself this time.
No. What would the Malaysians have to do to prompt you to
go that far? I mean, if they were to start defecting
Australian businesses, disadvantaging say the company
that's bidding for the patrol boat contract, you couldn't
sit back and just cop it, could you?
Well, I don't think it's going to help our relationship for
me to even canvas those issues. I mean, I'm faking the
presumption-Malaysia wants a good cooperative
relationship with Australia, as certainly as we want with
it. But again, as I said earlier, Malaysia does have to
want that. In the end, we can't whistle up or in some
way develop the spirit of a great relationship if one party
doesn't want that. Now, I mean, our bona fides in this
are that our two very senior ministers are going there
this week to maintain that relationship and I think really
we've got to see where it goes from there.
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: Do you wish you hadn't used the word recalcitrant?
Well, Dr Mahathir said that morning that he thought the
best policy was to thumb to use his words thumb his
nose at people to be noticed. The word recalcitrant was
a sort of shorthand way of tailking about the odd person
out or odd people out. As he had himself described
himself that way, I didn't think it was particularly doing
anything other than simply identifying that kind of
attitude. The reason I asked for this interview was to look to the
future in our last program for the year. So, I guess I'd
better move on to that. Can I ask you, do you think that
at last the economic and political cycles are coming
together for your government?
Well, I think that's true but I think, more particularly,
the economic cycle's coming together for the country. I
mean, we are growing now at three and a quarter
percent, we're growing as fast as any other OECD
country, there's a fair bit of, there's a nice mix in some
of that a bit of investment, private consumption, a bit
of government spending but all in all, it's going quite
well. We're seeing job vacancies improving quite
sharply, job ads and we saw 70,000 employment
growths in the last 2 months. So, I think we can say
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: with some confidence, the economy is now looking
much better.
And what about the Japanese situation? I mean, how
worried are you that the problems they have could drag
Australia back?
Well, I think it's certainly delaying their recovery.
Japan's still running a structural budget surplus. I can't,
with all due respects to Japan, see a lot of sense in a
country which has got a recessing running a structural
budget surplus. Now, there may be some indications
that the government of Japan is going to change its
policy there. That would help. But there's no doubt
these very big changes in asset values would be very
inhibiting of growth and activity in investment. That
can't be good for us, Laurie, but again, given the spread
of our the elements of our growth and where it's
coming, I think we can maintain the kind of growth
rates we've got at the moment and do better.
You've been preoccupied since the election by Mabo.
That's, every other way, served one way or the other. I
mean, what's your priority for ' 94? What's your main
focus? Well, I think we're coming into ' 94 with the following
things in place the economy growing, we will have
received the report on full employment by the 15th of
December. On the 16th of December, Bill Kelty will
present the Regional Development Task Force report..
We'll be focussing on those two things in the run up to
the budget which will now be an earlier budget and that
kind of focus, I think, coupled with other changes which
the government will be looking at over the course of the
year, including say in health, means that we're going to
have a fairly full domestic agenda, following as it has
already upon a very successful conclusion of
negotiations in respect of industrial relations. I hope by
then a successful conclusion of the Mabo debate in
legislation, the development of APEC as a structure for
Australian investment and trade to grow within.
So, we're moving on a broad front but I think next year
we'll get back onto those domestic issues and hopefully
that will occupy a large part of the debate.
Laurie Oakes: Prime Minister, we'll pause for a break. We'll be back
in a moment.
Prime Minister, the task force on unemployment's due
to report, I think on the 15th of December. Do you
expect any sort of left field options from them, anything
radical?
Paul Keating: Well, I think that the whole tenor of the report in
western world terms will be reasonably radical. I mean,
I think we can pride ourselves on being quite innovative
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: in social policy with things like the family allowance
supplement-and those other income support mechanisms
over time. I think we have the opportunity here to be
doing something innovative again. There is no doubt
that there is a problem and a reasonably long term one
with the long term unemployed and we have to address
it otherwise it'll be a long term problem and so it was
an important part of our election policy, that as I said
we wouldn't leave the unemployed behind and that's
why the Government will be considering it very
carefully and acting on it as quickly as possible.
In the budget...
In the budget and of course it'll be an early budget
which means we'll be acting on it fairly early.
You're prepared to spend money on it?
Well, I think so. But again, that's got to be money well
spent. That is that the proposal has got to be thought
about, thought in the structure of our current policies in
respect of the labour market so that when we spend
money, we spend it effectively.
The ACTU talks about spending $ 3 billion. Is that the
sort of ball park you've got in mind?
No, I haven't got any in mind at this stage, Laurie. I
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: think it is very important for us actually to see the
colour of the report, to see what's actually
recommended. But does that sound unrealistic?
Sounds on the high side to me, for some of the
objectives that have been spoken of.
The ACTU, of course, like ACOSS and a large slab of
the Caucus, says it should be paid for, part of it should
be paid for with a jobs levy. Now, what do you think
about that? Your Treasurer doesn't like it.
Well, no, I think John has made a remark about it but it
is an option, of course. It's a relatively short term
response to what would otherwise be a long term
problem. How we'll raise the revenue or how we will
deal with outlays are matters for the ERG and the
Budget Cabinet to consider. But the jobs levy is
obviously an option and we'll consider that because it
may well be that the report actually recommends it.
The employers, of course, say that the jobs levy will
cost jobs and there seems to be some backing from
economists for that.
Well, I think that that's like saying that the
Commonwealth revenue, wherever it might be, if it's
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: high it'll cost jobs, if it's lower it won't. I mean, this is
the lowest taxed country in the western world. I mean,
this is the point I think the Australian business
community have got to understand. This is the lowest
taxed country in the western world and the profit share
in GDP, the profit share in the economy now, is back to
the highs of the late ' 80s. So, I don't think there's any
real case for saying the Commonwealth shouldn't be
spending money on the long term unemployed.
So you don't have an in principle objection to the jobs
levy idea?
I don't have an in principle objection but I don't, I've
never embraced levies in the past when we've spoken of
them and when I was Treasurer, for what I thought at
the time were good reasons. So, I'd like to see what is
recommended, look at our budgetary options and then
see what we can do within the, if you like, the normal
parameters of budget making.
Now, is your plan for next year all economic or have
you got some sort of cultural program as well?
Well, we've got, we've had this review of cultural
policy being undertaken. That will be announced next
year. I think the whole there has been a see change in
Australia, Laurie. There's no doubt the culture has
changed from the ' 80s culture, the ' 70s culture of
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: protection. Australia's now an open trading economy,
we've got the GATT backdrop hopefully underpinning a
greater growth in trade around the world, we've got
APEC as well but we are now very, very competitive
with a competitive exchange rate mechanism, low
inflation, low interest rates. It's all there for us. We've
got a good education system which is feeding through
into our industrial base and into product innovation and
research and development.
How's that related to culture?
I think one has to look at all of that in terms of a total
culture. That is, Australians have got to know, have got
to feel proud about themselves, they've got to feel proud
about the change they've made in the last 10 years and
we go to the world as ourselves, as a totality. In other
words, you just can't market a bit of R D here or a
particular service there. You go as Australians who
have made an important change competently to deal with
the rest of the world. So, I think the whole culture
matters. I -think art matters, culture matters. You know
my views about the republic. I think the earlier
Australia represents itself in these matters, the better.
So, what you're talking about is creating some sort of
national spirit but can governments do that?
Well, I think a lot of that's happening already. It's a
combination of the Government's ' 80s policies changes
and the early ' 90s policy changes and the willingness on
the part of the Australian public to actually make an
important change for their own long term economic and
social benefit. It's a totality and I think we're a long
way down the road to that totality but I do see it all as
one thing. I don't think just the economic bit and then
there's the sort of social bit and it's got to be a total, a
total view of Australia.
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: We're almost out of time but could I ask you about the
political bit? You're now facing a couple of hielections,
probably 3. It's a bad time for you to face a
hi-election, isn't it, with the Government on the nose,
basically? I don't think that's true, Laurie. I don't think the
Liberals have any standing, basically. John Hewson
hasn't come up with a policy change since the election.
But they're miles ahead in the polis. I mean; these hielections
must show a big anti-government swing:
Well, hi-elections traditionally do, hut look, all of this
will come back to the field. If you ask people seriously
whether the Opposition amounts to an alternative
government, I don't think the answer to that's in the
affirmative. John Hewson's been the classic
Oppositionist, opportunist since the election. . He's
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating: nothing like the figure he said he would be someone
removed from public life, trying to do the right thing in
policy. That's all gone and even last week he said
basically he was readopting the essence of Fightback.
So, I don't think in leadership or policy terms I can't
remember one policy that they've articulated since
March 1993 that matters. Not one policy.
But if that's the case, why are you so far behind in the
polls? I mean, is it because of the things you refer to as
dust in the cracks of history? Are people offended by
things like your style?
In political terms, we had a bad budget and it's taken us
a lot to in political terms. In economic terms, it was a
very good budget for us. It's taken us a while to
recover from that. We have had the distraction of all
these other issues and
What about your so-called imperial style?
Well, I think people will make their judgement about
that. In the end, I think people ' make their judgement
without the big issues. You know, in a couple of weeks
where we concluded the budget, wrapped up a deal on
Mabo, attended a meeting of APEC of which we had a
large part in the architecture there of, and are now about
to consider long term unemployment and regional
development, for that not to be recognised I mean, I've
been here a long time and so have you. There was
more change this year than there was in 10 years of
Coalition governments. I mean, I remember my own
government and the Gorton Government and the whole
government. I mean, they didn't do these sorts of
things. So, I think it's pretty unfair to have that, you know,
important classic work you know, really large changes
in any way diminished by basically silly issues.
Laurie Oakes:
Paul Keating:
Compere: Prime Minister, we thank you.
Thank you, Laurie.
The Prime Minister with Laurie Oakes.
ENDS Agency Report For private research and not to be disseminated. Every effort made to ensure accuracy for the benefit of our clients but
no legal or other responsibility is taken for errors or omissions.