FEt.. a, I rlar 16 : 39 No . C26 F .01;,' U
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
INTERVIEW WITH. STAN GRANT, REAL LIFE PROGRAM, CHI 7
1 MARCH 1994
E& OE PROOF COPY
SG. Why did Ros Kelly take so long-to resign?
PM;. Because she believed, as all reports have confirmed, that she had
done nothing improper, that there was no question of fraud and
impropriety, and therefore questions about her choices, that is the
exercise of her ministerial discretion, were subjective ones that didn't
require resignation.
SG: So, what was the final straw then?
PM: Well, the House of Representatives made a report and said that there
wasn't an adequate paper trail. That is, in terms of recommendations,
that the record keeping, they said, wasn't up to scratch. I think Mrs
Kell-y would have had to live with that. But then of course, the Senate,
as is its habit, was debating whether they would have a full scale
senate inquiry which would then go on for more months, and I think
having gone on for months she thought it was doing the Government
more harm then good.
SG: But before that parliamentary inquiry there was evidence of
incompetence, of bias, of misleading parliament. Wasn't that enough
for you to say to her you have to go?
P M. No evidence of misleading Parliament. There was none of that. Not
incompetence, an argument about bias.
SO: I don't know if the whiteboard is seen as competent, do you?
TEL: I. Mar., 94 16: 39 No. 026 P. 02/ 07
2
PM: It is a matter of how she made the decisions. But you see these were
decisions for amateur sports clubs, Stan, for netball courts..
SG: $ 30 million, though.
PM. Yes, that's right. For grants of $ 50, 000 and $ 100,000 to netball
courts, squash courts, basketball courts, for small amateur sporting
organisations that can never get this sort of money. As she said
yesterday, nobody said that any one thing that was built shouldn't be
built. What the Liberals said was, " this is a pity, we are not getting as
much of it as we should". But that didn't stop John Hewson saying that
in one go he would spend $ 30 million on a university without one note
of paper, one bit of evaluation, and when asked, " well how did you
arrive at your $ 30 million, Dr Hewson?" He said contemptuously, put
his fingers up and said " three times ten."
SG: But, Prime Minister, even now after we have had the resignation, we
have had the parliamentary Inquiry, it sounds as though you are still
trying to play it down, still trying to say it is a piddling matter.
PM: No, I am saying that you asked me why she didn't resign early. I said
because there was no hint of impropriety or fraud, but a debate about
the priorities she set and that was going to go on for some time, and
she thought that it was going to do the Government harm.
SG: Do you accept in prolonging it, for as long as it was, that the
Government suffered a lot of damage and gave the Opposition the
opportunity to score a few points?
PM: Let me read to you from today's newspoll, and this is the real story of
the day, Stan. It says, ' despite the Coalitions political success in
forcing the resignation of a Cabinet Minister over the sports affair,
voter dissatisfaction with the Leader of the Opposition, Dr F-fewson, has
re-ached an all time high.'
SG: So, you don't accept that you did suffer any collateral damage, as Kim
Beazely put it?
PM: What has happened in the period since this sport things has been on,
the Government's popularity has risen. Now, it's not to say that the
Government wants the issue around. But what today's newspoll
makes clear, and this would be if you put a stethoscope on the heartbeat
of the Liberal Party in this building today, they wouldn't be talking
about sports they would be talking about the fact that they are going
back~ wards.
S G. Prime Minister, now that one Minister has gone for incompetence,
does this mean that other Ministers are now on notice as well? They
can take it as being warned?
TE. LM: ar. 94 16: 39 No. 026 P. 03/ 07
3
PM: Well, I think, one has to be, competence is part of one's skills in this
life. Now, this Government is 11 years in office and it has been a very
competent Government, but part of that is because of the discretion
Ministers have. This sort of amateur baby blue view of the world, that
a Minister can only do what is on a piece of paper and tick it a piece
of paper from a bureaucrat is only the view that somebody could have
who has never held a big job, who has never held a major portfolio,
who has never made the big decisions. Because this Government has
actually run the policy, it is not being run by the bureaucracy, it is
being run by the Government.
ST-Ok, given that you are going to allow that discretion to continue,
unfettered, how do you make sure that this situation is not repeated
again. The Democrats are calling for a code of conduct, are you
prepared to agree to that?
PM: Well, the first thing the Democrats can do, in any code of conduct, is to
declare their own interests in the Senate. Do you realise Stan that in
the House of Representatives Members and Ministers have to declare
all their personal assets and all their interests. There is no Senate
register. Whenever the Government has proposed a register of
Senators Interests, the Democrats and the Greens and the Liberal
Party between them vote It down. So, the only suggestion I have got to
make to Senator Kemnot, if she wants to start on the questions of
accountability and putting things on the table, they ought to first start
with a register of their assets in the Senate.
SG: So, you are saying no to a deal over a code of conduct?
PM: Well, let them show by actions and deeds, rather than words, that the
Senate is actually interested in putting some code on itself.
SG: So, -you are saying, no you don't want more cheques and balances to
make sure this doesn't happen again?
PM: No, but the same code which the House of Representatives has had
on itself for 10 years. You probably don't quite realise this, but there is
a set of disclosure things in the House of Representatives that there
isn't in the Senate. And yet it is the Senate moralising about codes of
conduct.
SG: Well, again, Prime Minister, you are saying no to Senator Kemnot?
PM: We are saying pass the register in the Senate, show us a modicum,
just a modicum of sincerity on this and we will think about it.
TEL
I TEL 4
SG: She is also saying, Senator Kemnot is also saying that if you agree to
the code of conduct she won't go ahead and support the Opposition for
another inquiry Into the sports rorts affair.
PM: Well, that is a veiled threat, you see.
SG: You don't wear that?
PM: What I said last week, all these minor Parties, almost every week they
have a veiled threat. The current week's threat is, if you don't agree to
this that and everything oflse we will have a senate inquiry into all this.
I mean, last week Senator Kernot -wanted to gaol public servants who
answered back. I mean, those dreadful public servants who happened
to say that they were instructed by the Government and Senators say,
" gaol them, gaol them."'
SG: Now that Graham Richardson has taken over Minister Kelly's portfolio,
is Graham Richardson just holding that portfolio over until Carmen
Lawrence goes into Parliament?
PM: Well, there is a number of things, there is an inquiry, which as you
know, Mr Griffith's will soon be undertaken into these matters
connected wIth Mr Griffith, he has already been cleared by a police
inquiry, which means he has a prospect of returning to the Ministry at
some point. You've got Dr Lawrence's election in Western Australia.
These are choices the Labor Party has got to make.
SG: So the chances are that Dr Lawrence will take over that portfolio?
PM: No, I couldn't say that to you Stan, but at least, obviously, there are
some choices for the government.
SG: What about Ros Kelly's future?
PM: She was a great Environment Minister and she has a very proud
record and I think it is worth recording that, can I just give you a couple
of instances: she negotiated the agreement on the National Forest
Policy; developed and implemented the Commonwealth's endangered
species legislation; established Ocean Rescue 2000; made major
advances in the World Heritage Listing at Shark Bay, Fraser Island
and Kakadu; established the National Reserve System Program;
established the Feral Pest Program, this is a very proud record from an
Environment Minister.
SG-But, for all of that, she will be remembered for the ' sports rorts' affair
and having to resign over that. What about her future?
P M: She will go now to the backbench of the Parliamentary Party to the
Caucus. TE. NLa r 94 16~ 3 No 026 P 04/ 0
i I L L
SG: No chance of being recycled at ra Graham Richardson?
PM: And if she wishes to recontest a place in the Ministry, well, of course,
that is going to be open to her and open to the Caucus to consider her
again at some time -should she so choose.
SO: Do you look at that favourably?
PM: It is not a matter of whether I look at it favourably. At some point in
time every member of the Caucus has a right to offer themselves for
selection.
SG:-But, after this affair, do you think it is feasible that she could possibly
come back?
PM:. The thing Is, I don't think at the moment it is even in her mind.
SG: The Opposition has already signalled that it is going to go on the
attack after this. It has asked questions already about your piggery. It
has also said that Dr Lawrence will be targeted once she gets into
Federal Parliament, so how are you going to counter that?
PM;. Malcolm Fraser the other day said this: twelve months since the
loss of the March 1993 election, we are as much in the dark about
what the Liberal Party stands for as we were the day Fightback was
buried very condemnatory statement by a former Liberal Party
Prime Minister. In other words, the Liberal Party's problem Stan, is
they have no policy, their leader is at 26 per cent approval rating, they
would lose an election if it was held today and they think now their
recourse because they believe they are going to lose the next election
and they are facing a further five years in opposition, they think what
they'll do is throw mud as some sort of substitute for policy. Well, what
the -electoral record shows is that people without a policy, without
substance, without a link and contact and understanding of the
Australian community don't get returned to office.
SO: Prime Minister, Peter Costello today has been contacted by Federal
Police wishing to interview him over leaked documents in this ' sports
rorts' affair. What do you make of that?
PM: Probably the Secretary of the Department, sensibly, and not
unreasonably, when documents are stolen from the Department of
Finance has asked the Police to investigate it.
SG:-He says it is an attempt to harass and intimidate public servants who
have been making information public about malpractice. 1. 11 a r-., j4 io NO r U,
TEL.: M ar .94 16: 39 No. 026 P. 06/ 0-(
6
PM: Does he mean the same public servants they are threatening to goal in
the Senate? Are they the same ones that the Liberal party will vote to
discipline in the Senate? Look, Stan, don't believe that nonsense. If
the Department of Finance seeks a recourse to the police for loss of
documents and the trail leads to Mr Costello, that's Mr Costello's
problem.
SG: Prime Minister, finally, one of the things to come out of this of course,
was that disgraceful performance in Parliament last week. How can
you make sure that that is not going to happen again?
PM: What that was about was that Dr Hewson was defeated in his
executive, was obliged to move a censure motion against me over the
sports affair he didn't want to do it. When he did it he made a mess
of it. It was a terribly weak speech.
SG: But you stirred the pot didn't you?
PM: No, hang on..
SG: You got your backbenchers do create a bit of a raucous.
PM: No, it was a terribly weak speech and so because the Liberal's said
well, what will we do now, our blokes made a mess of it? They said
let's make the news " Parliamentary uproar'. So, then it was all about
them telling the Speaker off and jumping up and abusing so..
SO: Your slde is not innocent in that either.
PM. No, but the story was not " Hewson weak: hopeless speech" but
" Parliamentary uproa3'. mhat was an instant decision the Liberal party
fr ontbench made when Dr Hewson finished his speech. Now Stan,
look, they are a desperate little bunch, they have been in opposition
for eleven years heading to thirteen and, 1 believe, going to sixteen.
SG: But you are as much to blame for that little effort last week, how can
you make sure that it doesn't happen again?
PM: I beg your pardon. No I wasn't. I got up and made a speech. They
censured a Prime Minister and allowed me five and a half minutes out
of fifteen to reply, the other ten minutes were taken up by raucous
noise and abuse.
SG: Stephen Martin, the Speaker, is talking about having to bring Arnold
Schwarzenegger into Parliament to have some sort of control. Has it
really gone that far?
PM: If you look at Parliaments around the world, this one is a fairly demure
one. Look at the Japanese, the Korean Parliament, the Italian
TEL
TEL: I. Mar * 94 16: 39 No. U26 P. 07/ 07Cj
7
Parliament let's not over do the hyperbole. What happened here
the Liberal party leader made a censure on the Government, on the
Prime Minister, failed and his front bench to smother for him decided
they would have a day of parliamentary hi jinx. Stan, these things
come and go. The next day I was In Tasmania pulling together an
historic agreement between the Commonwealth and the States to open
up the water, electricity, railways and ports of this country to
competitive breezes. That day I was in the course of getting across
those issues. The following day we actually came to an historic
agreement with the States. As far as I am concerned if the Liberal
party wants to get Involved in Parliamentary nonsense as distinct from
substance-let them.
SG: If the Speaker Stephen Martin has to discipline the Government, has to
throw any of your Ministers out of Parliament, how would you react to
that?
PM; Speakers have done that in the past.
SG: You would accept that?
PM: The Speaker has disciplined Government members in the past. Of
course I would accept that.
SO: So he would be under no threat at all if he did that?
PM: No, but the Speaker sensibly, will make his own judgements about
these matters. It is not a matter of me or you deciding some strategy
for him. What happened here was basically a rudderless Opposition
with a leader now nobody supports, a weak leader, a weak person who
can't cut the mustard In policy or In discipline or in organisation, is
sitting there with a divided Opposition and the only tactic they know is
now noise and disruption.
SG: Prime Minister, for all the attacks you have made today on Dr Hewson,
you are the one who is being accused today of having looked after a
mate for too long.
PM: Mrs Kelly resigned her position and she has paid the price for
whatever is believed to be the management of this program. But
again, let me repeat, after a very distinguished ministerial career in the
environment and in other portfolios, no hint of fraud or impropriety, an
argument simply about choices and one which would have gone on for
months.
ends