4 4.,
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
ALP NATIONAL CON FERENCE9 HOBART, TASMANIA
29 SEPTEMBER, 1994
PMV: Well, I thought I would give you some impressions of mine, of the
conference and give you a chance to ask some questions, if you wish.
We're getting towards the end of it and this wAil be probably the last
opportunity to get something to air for news. The first thing I would say
is I think the conference has reflected the general policy unity in the
Labor Party and the general willingness to apply the task of getting
things done to move the Party into the next three years. These
conferences are on every three years and there is. I think, something
which was commented on through the week, a generally business-like
attitude by the Party to its work. Some have said it is too dull. Well,
the fact is, it is aboLlt making the policies. A lot of these debates are
had earlier, as you know, and you can say lots of things about the
Labor Party, but never that it Is dull.
There are a couple of what I call headline issues, which will come out
of this conference. One, in particular, which I think will be around
when all of us are gone and that was the decision, a very historic one,
to increase the representation for women in the parliaments. That is
the keynote change of this conference. That is the one that will
change the character of Australian politics, it's the one which will lift
the opportunities for women to participate in the parliaments of the
country. So, this, I think and I will come back to it: in a moment
was a very historic change, and one that I think we had to have a rule
for. Not a principle, but a rule. And, as a consequence, we have a
rule.
The next major issue was the privatisations. This has always been
somewhat of a difficult issue for the Labor Party. Of course, we've had
a number of these debates, we had it with a competitive Telecom, we
had it with the privatisation of QANTAS, we've had It now, again, with
the privatisation of the major airport assets of the country. In agreeing
to It, It will mean that we will be able to expand airport facilities to meet
tourism in particular, which is growing rapidly. W. are in the fastest
growing part of the tourism Industry world wide, in the Asia-Pacific.
The growth In tourist destinations to Australia is profound, and we
really need the asset growth in these particular investments and they
would not have come from the Commonwealth Budget. They need to
come privately and they now will. But, as well as that there will be a
yield to the Commonwealth Budget which is coming from the proceeds,
which is important in the Government's medium term fiscal strategy.
Now, this was a must issue for the government and one which I am
pleased to say, the Party faced up to, and sensibly. But, I will come
back to it if you like.
Industri al Relations, again I think an acceptance of the directions the
government has been taking. I was very pleased at the embrace of
enterprise bargaining which was part and parcel of the amendments
and the debate, which we haven't had in full measure until now. And,
an understanding that the award system is there as an underpinning
and, I think, a general, broad appreciation of that.
Now, the other issue which, of course, you are getting yourselves
worked up about today, uranium. Uranium is one of those issues
which I think attitudes change in, over time. But, it is one which is
deeply held in the Labor Party and one which I think, as a party, and
for my part as the leader, one has got to make a decision about
whether you really put a tear through the party in changing it at this
point. And, even if one wanted to do it, taking a running jump at it.
well, in this respect I have not taken a running jump at this issue
because to have taken the running jump I would have had to have
started running about four to six weeks ago. And, I would have been
well and truly in the air before the conference stared. As it turned out,
the thing I was running on was the vote for women, the vote in favor of
the representation of women, and the thing that the Government just
had to get through, the privatisations. So, what will happen is uranium
will be referred off to the National Executive for a report to the next
conference. By and large, beyond that Labor Party conferences can be a great
strength for the Labor Party. They can be a problem for it, mostly in
years gone by they have been a strength for it. I think this one has on
this occasion. Now I think the Party does realise what a tremendous
opportunity in government it has and I made these points, I hope
clearly, in the industrial debate, at least as far as the industrial
legislation was concerned today. So, it is a case then of the timing of
these conferences fitting in contemporaneously with each parliament.
It means that, In terms of policy, the board is set up to the next election
and beyond. And, we get a chance then to review where we go from
there. So, I'd be glad to take questions from you.
J: ( inaudible question about PM's role in uranium policy discussions)
PM: No, I had a few discussions with people but again people have had
some discussions with me as well I didn't, before I came I basically
decided not to touch uranium because I wanted to be sure that the
airport FAC package would get through and that the vote for
representation for women would get through and I just might remind
you that that was only a very close thing. The Left Caucus only
decided to agree to it about 20 minutes before the vote.
J: The FAC?
PM: No, the vote for women. And, basically to try and run the uranium
discussion as well, in that environment, wasn't really worth doing. And
when I was here a few people were saying, " Look there is still a
chance to change this", and I had, then, a couple of discussions with
people but, you've really got to have your heart and your back in one
of these changes to get them through.
J: But, Prime Minister, you say that the present policy on uranium is
outdated. I mean, you would like a change, wouldn't you and you did
have discussions with people. Brian Ede said you were quite helpful...
PM: Yes, Brian Ede approached me, I didn't approach him, saying he
wanted my support for it. And, I said, " Look, I don't think there is a
majority here for it, I don't think people are prepared to make the
change yet. u But, I said we'll see as the week goes on wthat people
have got to say. Now, you know the AWU's position in Queensland,
they were flatly opposed to it and by the time that they could see that
their tactic with CRA was not going to change CRA's industrial
position, then they yeilded their position. But, to get a change like this
up you've really got to go full bore at it.
J: But regardless of that dispute within CRA and the AWUI what does the
fact that there has been no change say to large companies like CRA,
and foreign investors?
PM: Very little, very little Indeed. Look, let me just give you some data here
which Is worth recording. Ranger has got a capacity of 3,000 tonnes
this year, it is producing 1,335. Olympic Dam has a capacity of 1 ,900
tonnes and it is producting 1,325. If you had all the prospectives up,
the lot of them, they come to about 7,300 tonnes in a year, if you add
the lot together. That's everything, Kintyre, CRA, Koongarra, Veelirie,
North Ranger, Ben Lomond, Beverley, all these together. Wherein, at
the moment we are producing 5,000 tonnes the truth is, we can't meet
the capacity of our mines to produce now. Now, were this to have
changed, the mine that people would have had the greatest
expectation for was Pan Continental. The old Pan Continental mine, it
has got tremendous environmental problems. And, there would be no
guarantee, far from a guarantee that that would ever begin in the East
Alligator Rivers region. So, you're talking about really, Koongarra,
which has got 15,000 tonnes of reserves compared to Ranger and
Olympic Dam which have got 427,000. So, in economic terms it
doesn't matter very much at all. And, that's the point. Essentially, in
economic terms, it Is not a pressing matter, it is not a pressing matter
in political terms.
J: Prime Minister, this motion didn't seem to be dead until some time this
morning. Were you prepared for a motion to be put but, basically, it
looked like a fairly transparent attempt to lock out a company like CRA
because it didn't please the union movement?
PM: Well, let me make my position clear about CRA I don't support their
tactics of trying to squeeze unions out of their mines. But, be that as it
may, these companies have done very well out of the Government and
its industrial relations policy, in the profit share in the economy, in the
competitiveness via the exchange rate, in everything that has come
with it. And, part of it is, I think, not picking the eyes out of the policy
mix, which, I think, Is their intention. But, no proposal was ever
agreed. And, therefore, in general terms, the only place you can go
with uranium after the current policy is to go to a policy where they just
get up, individually, on their merits. Now, that basically means, maybe
Koongarra, maybe this Kintyre thing in the future. But, the truth is that
the existing operators can't sell their product.
J: Isn't this a case of by pushing this off to the National Executive once
again, which you 41d after the 1991 conference you face the
prospect of simply having the same mess that you've had this lost
week, revisited In three years time.
PM: Yes, but there are always some issues that will drag along. This was
not an issue two weeks ago, this was not an issue one week ago, it
was not an issue last weekend. There were only two issues that were
issues over those timeframes: that was the vote for female
representation in the parliaments and the FAC and the assets. Now,
each conference has its purpose, this issue has been hanging around
since I'm not quite sure when we changed the policy to
accommodate Olympic Dam I think, 1980. This is 13 years later yet
we've had privatisation of QANTAS, telecommunications, each
conference has served its purpose. This conferences purpose has
been, in the broad, in the big issues, to be the representation issue
and the privatisations.
J: Would you like to see the policy opened up in the future?
PM: Well, look, a policy which has no arbitrary quality to it is better than
one without it. But, again, in economic terms, it matters very little.
Certainly at this point The world market is over supplied and we've
got more capacity than we can handle.
J: There was a late amendment carried which appeared to be related to
the uranium debate, allowing exploration in National Parks, it was
carried by 51 votes to 50, and during the debate the Environment
Minister, Senator Faulkner, said that there was a direct nexus between
exploration and future mining... ( inaudible) which would constitute
an administrative, legal and political nightmare for the Labor Party.
What do you say about that and the fact that the amendment was
carried?
PM: Well, I was told it was carried just as I was coming up here and I didn't
hear all of the debate, obviously. Well, what is in the Party policy in
respect of say. National Parks, without seeing the words of the
amendment, the sense of it as I understand it, is that the Party may
provide for exploration in National Parks. But, that doesn't mean to
say that the Government would or should.
J: What is your attitude?
PM: Well, I'll have to have a look at it and see what it says and take some
advice. My attitude, generally, has been that National Parks are
declared to be National Parks for that very reason. That is, to
preserve them.
J: ( Inaudible)... a uranium policy that half the Cabinet has described as
absurd. Is the the symbolism in that, is there not a problem in that..?
PM: I don't think so. I don't think so. There are lots of if you want to
track through the great document of the Labor Party's policies and the
one the Coalition had and tick off the ones you think are absurd, there
would be a lot df ticks on the pages, I can tell you.
J: Do you think that basically the change in the platform to allow
exploration in National Parks should be ignored?
PM: I will have a look at the. change and I will make a judgement about it. I
am not going to respond to it without knowing what was said and what
was meant.
J: Mr Keating what did you think of Bill Ludwig's attempts to link it with
industrial relations?
PM: Well, I think he worked out that that was not a goer. And, the reason it
is not a goer is that you can basically fit this Kintyre reserve in your
eye. It is basically a fleck of dust in the eye compared to a decent
deposit and there was no way that CRA were going to change their
Industrial relations policy to mine a thimble full of uranium. They were
never going to do it and I am surprised that Bill ever thought that they
would.
J: What sympathy do you have for local Aborigines in Kakadu who have
been pushing for the opening up of Koongarra and ( inaudible) and
how do you think it sits with the whole native title efforts of the last
couple of years?
PM: Well, native title never gave Aboriginal people the right to minerals.
These are always issues of larger national moment and larger national
moment they will always be. Including in that, of course, the rights of
Aboriginal people and their views. But, I mean, that's about the only
weight I would put on it.
J: Mr Keating, given you said that if this was an issue to get through
you'd have to approach it four or five weeks before the conference...
PM: Well, not four or five, a couple of months at least.
J: a couple of months, do you think it was handled badly by the people
who were pushing for a change?
PM: No, you mean the uranium issue here?
J: Yes.
PM: Well, look, the thing was, if you look back a month or three weeks ago,
what were the issues? The major issue, I thought, two issues, the
ones that I mentioned. I didn't believe we could go through this
conference withoUt setting a rule rather than a principle for the
representation of women. Now, I told my faction that at the National
Executive meeting in Canberra. Some people were still hankering
after a principle, I said, " Well, if you do, I will stand you up at the
conference, as long as you understand that." And, I will say this, for
people on the right of the Party, they came to the party with a rule.
That rule was not accepted by the Left, in general. And, the Left
Caucus, of course, were having, there was a lot of gnashing of teeth
minutes or so before the decision. I think their concern is that seats
which may go to the Left will go to women on the Right. And,
therefore, there was not equanimity of view. There was, in the end, I
am happy to say. So, the notion that you know, they were saying that
this was a pro-cooked result, this was a foregone conclusion... It was
not a foregone conclusion at all. And, they knew that unless it was
going to be agreed there would be a very tough battle on the floor of
the conference in which I would put my views, very firmly. Now, I am
delighted with the fact that the whole party has agreed to this and It will
change the face of Australian politics and the Labor Party. And this is
a very great change and when, looking back over these conferences
with some hindsight, this will stand out as a very large and significant
change.
On the other issue, of course, the privatisation, it was imperitive for the
government that we get this change through. That's in fiscal terms,
imperitive that we get it through. And, we basically were making clear
that just for efficiency reasons and servicing these airports as well as
the fiscal reasons, we really needed this change.
J: What is your reaction to the Current Account deficit announced today?
PM: Well, it is one month's deficit. It is higher than we'd like it to be but it is
crammed full of capital goods and probably at this phase of the
recovery that is what one would expect to start to see. Certainly, we
need a lot of capital equipment to try and keep the supply response in
the economy cracking. What is one of the big issues in the
sustuinability of this recovery and that is the supply capacity of the
economy. The supply capacity of the economy will only be there with
investment goods and particularly plant and equipment and there was
a lot of that in these. There were a few lumpy things as well. Now,
there is a bit of extra debt in there and there is a bit of lost earnings
coming through from the drought but, by and large, you can't ever take
a month's number as being indicative of the trend
J: Does it put more pressure on the Budget policy?
PM: No, no.
J: Mr Keating, on what do you base your confidence that the affirmative
action rule ( inaudible)?
PM: Oh, because I think that by and large that the Party has decided that
the time has come, that we will be a stronger and better party if more
women are represented. And, it is going to take a lot of changes,
particularly in states where you've still got rank and file preselection
systems. People are going to have to, factions are going to have to
decide who gets particular seats and how they get them, some time
ahead of them getting them. So, it will take a bit of doing but I think
there is a lot of goodwill towards the doing of it and nobody is going to
leave themselves vulnerable to a National Executive decision.
PM: Do you have any sympathy for men who might miss out on
preselection because of this rule change?
PM: Well, I think, by and large, the men, as you put it, have had more than
their share of the market for most of the century so I don't think feeling
sorry for them is quite the term.
J: Mr Keating, would the symbolism of Carmen Lawrence as your deputy
serve the Labor Party well?
PM: Well, what's the point of me debating the deputy leader of the Labor
Party, here? None.
J: Prime Minister, despite uranium, which You say was not really an
issue, this was a really stage-managed conference, everything was
sewn up. Do you think that sort of sterility of debate is a good thing for
the Labor Party, why aren't things more vigorous now?
PM: You mean you'd like more pictures for the television in the evenings?
J: No, no, just more vigorous debate.
PM: Well, what you have is not sterility, I don't think, at all. That Is, that
was there a real debate at this conference about the representation of
woman? Well, you're damn right there was. And, it was happening
right under your nose, out there, but it was inside a locked room where
people were debating their future and whether they could live with this
rule change. I mean, that is a really live Issue and It was a really live
debate. The same with, you know the to-ings and fro-ings over the last
six weeks or so in respect of the FAC and privatisation. It has been on
and off and on and off, people saying yes and another proposal being
put; then the idea of leasing etcetera. And, finally, a resolution. It is
the antitheses of sterility. Now, the fact that they are agreed by the
time that they are here only means that the whole pressure cooker
atmosphere of the conference coming produces the result. In other
words, the vitality which should be there in policy determination, is, in
fact, there. And, I think the notion that the conference is, I saw a bit of
comment this morning that if there are not fights on the floor then we
don't have a vigorous debate. Well, there is obviously a vigorous
debate here and there has been.
J: Where was passion on the floor, though?
PM: Well, I thought there was a fair bit of passion when the representation
for women went through and there was a passion not only from the
women in the Labor Party but also female journalists as well. I thought
even you were passionate about it. Maybe I was mistaken but I
thought you were getting a bit teary eyed about
J: No, no, no, you've got the wrong girl.
PM: You don't get teary eyed?
J: I wasn't teary eyed in this instance. Please.
PM: Oh. Thank you.
J: Is Bernie Fraser setting a move for you on fiscal policy. do you think?
PM: Well, I don't think so but central banks will always put as much weight
on the government as possible. And this is central banks the world
over. But, the government has a medium term fiscal strategy which we
adopted when we expanded fiscal policy with One Nation in 1992. We
want to be able to show that we had a ballooning of outlays for the
purpos es of a fiscal stimulus, to lift the economy up, and we wanted to
be able to show, demonstrably, graphically, that it would come down.
So, you can't do that with just the forward estimate for just one year.
Until 1992 we only had a forward estimate for one year. And, we went
to the medium term projectory to show that what we Intended with One
Nation was a stimulus and we would then withdraw it. Well, basically,
that's what we've showed and that's what we've done and that strategy
was based on solid economic growth and low inflation and that's
exactly what we have. So, we don't have demand growing now like we
had it growing In the eighties. That's just not the case. And, of course,
we don't have inflation now, as in the eighties. So, the elements of
that medium term strategy which we laid down are being met almost in
a copy book way. So, the question is, why change it?
J: Normally through a recovery governments will progressively tighten
fiscal policy?
PM: But, let me just say a couple of things to you. We've got
unemployment at nine and a half per cent. We'll have the deficit back
to two and a half percent of GDP in this financial year, in 1994-95.
That's a very big juxtaposition of numbers. Nine and a half per cent
unemployment and two and a half per cent on the deficit. The deficit
peaked at over four per cent in the early eighties when unemployment
reached ten per cent and it was almost five per cent in the mid..
seventies when unemployment was under six per cent. Here we are
with unemployment at nine and a halt per cent, that is arguing the case
for a continuing stimulus and we've got the deficit already, this year, at
two and a half per cent of GDP.
J: Why then, does Bernie Fraser keep ( inaudible) to keep the pressure
up?
PM: I think that central bankers always want as much, if they can have
more of a hand from fiscal policy, as they see it, the better. But, I just
think that one has got to look back and that is why I think the OECD
made it clear when it made those remarks a couple of weeks ago in its
report, it said the Australian proposal to get back to one per cent of
GDP as a deficit, by 1996-97, was realistic and better than most other
OECD countries.
J: So, Bernie Frasers wrong..?
PM; Well, if the notion is that we have to and he hasn't said this but if
you're reading into it the notion being that no deficit Is too low and
no surplus too great, yes that Is wrong.
J: Prime Minister, do you think the next conference will be as easy to
manage as this one, with twice as many delegates at Vt
PM: Well, I don't know, the NSW conference has always had 1,000 and
we've always managed that. Maybe the bigger they are the easier
they are. I don't know.
J: Prime Minister, on industrial relations you seem to be suggesting that
some of the bigger unions were dragging the chain again.. ( inaudible)?
PM: Oh look, I think the happy hunting ground of the central wage fixing
system has been exactly just that, happy hunting grounds and people
have wanted to keep it as long as they could. But, the better unions, I
think, see the opportunity of enterprise bargaining to really be relevant
to their members, to get themselves higher real incomes and also to
make the companies more profitable. And, that is why this change
they don't like the flexibility agreements because they are non union.
In other words, let's take a business, maybe a cake shop with eight
people, which is paying under a federal award but is not unionised.
That proprietor and those employees can agree to vary the award.
Now, the unions don't like that. This has induced them into a real love
affair with enterprise bargaining. Well, I reckon that is just a terrific
outcome if they push that harder, certified agreements as they're
called. And, this will mean that unions will earn themselves and I
say earn earn themselves an organic place in the labour market.
So, instead of simply just rolling on to pick up subscriptions they* are
actually helping people get wage increases, enterprise per enterprise.
And, that is the kind of change that the labour movement has to
embrace so that it is, in a sense, free of the industrial relations
commission. Less vulnerable to a change in the IR Act.
J: Mr Keating. .( inaudible) the Access Economics report/
PM: I don't even know what they are, Michael, what are they?
J: Well it suggested there was very substantial scope for expanding
exports, or are you saying that can be done within the ? 7
PM: Well, there is either a rebuke to be handed out to the sales people at
Ranger and Olympic Dam because there is 600 tonnes spare
capacity at Olympic Dam and there is 1,700 tonnes in Ranger.
J: Just on that point, Mr. Keating, it will be another two years before it
comes back from the.
PM: I don't think the uranium market is going to change iii two years, three
years
JX Add to that another six years of lead up time for starting the new mine
and then you have eight or nine years, isn't that time for markets to
change..?
PM: Well, we haven't seen It. This policy went into place in 1976 in the
Labor Party, it was changed in 1980 as I remember it, inl respect of
Olympic Dam, that's 13 years ago and we've never seen a buoyant
market from that day to this.
J: Are you also saying on uranium and women and the FAC, that once
every three years the Labor Party can't keep more than two balls In the
air at once?
PM: Oh, sometimes we keep a lot in the air at once...
J: Yes, but this time.
PM: But it is a matter of how you rank them. I mean, the women's
representation ona was a big issue, the FAC was a completely
necessary Issue. But, whether in fact for a mining policy which already
allows mining which is already oversupplied and mines are working at
under capacity, where do you rank it in the ranking of Issues? The
thing is, you can't rank it highly. So, you may say it is numerically
three balls but it is really two soccer balls and one ball bearing.
J: The companics seem to think they can make some money out of it or
they wouldn't be in there pushing it, so whiy not let the market decide?
PM: Well, who is here pushing it? I think, in the main it has always been
FRA who have now bought the Pan Continental interest at Jobiluka.
And, mining companies will always try and have as much flexibility as
they can get. But, there wMl always be, for that mine and the flood
plain of the East Alligator River, there will always be a big
environmental Issue. Okay, thanks.
ends.