PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P. J. KEATING MP
INTERVIEW WITH RADIOS 2UE, 2GB, ABC, TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 1995
E& OE PROOF COPY
PM: Well, in the end he had to come out and say something. He couldn't
hide forever and we waited and what did we get? Nothing. Nothing.
He is the same person he was in the late 1980s. There was nothing to
him then and there is nothing to him now. So, the ' headland' speech:
what was it about? The great changes in the international isation of
Australia? The great change in our culture? The assertion of our
identity? The shift into Asia? Nothing. It is about an independent
auditor general or an independent speaker. So what. So what. What
John Howard has proven and on television tonight he says with his
most statesman-like voice that he could propose, he said ' I'm sure that
the things that unite Australia is more important than things which
divide us.' The very thing he said at his defeat at the election in 1987.
So, he has done the full circle. What we got tonight was a hollow
collection of cliches, exposing his complete paucity of policies. He has
got no policy structure. He even goes on to say after a week of us
fighting for the interests of the Australian battler' a week the
Australian Labor Party has been fighting for them for 100 years and
this Government has been fighting for their interests for 12 years. He
said people may not want government out of their lives, but they do
want it off their backs'. That is an American republican line. It is
Liberal Party code for cutting government spending on welfare
payments, but you don't find any mention of spending cuts in there.
Then he talks about a pro-family industrial relations policy. In other
words, you should appreciate the right to be sacked more easily. Very
pro-family.
Then he says he would destroy the Commonwealth external affairs
power. That means no Gordon-below-Frankl ins. That means no
Daintrees. No Kakadu National Parks. He says the use of this is illicit.
On foreign policy there is not a single, solitary policy about Australia's
engagement with the region. He says, and listen to this one the
next Coalition government will continue the pattern.' Could you
imagine anything weaker or more vacuous when this Government is
threading together the largest, free trade agreement in the history of
the Asia-Pacific area with APEC and making bi-lateral relationships
with countries like Indonesia and Japan of a quality that we have never
had in the past. What does he say? the next Coalition government
will continue the pattern'. You would be ashamed to put a statement
like that out.
Then he talks about the republic. But, he doesn't say whether he is for
it or against it. He can't even say it. He is afraid to say what his
position is because his position is against a republic. But now he
thinks that a majority of opinion are in favour of it, he is not prepared to
say, he is not prepared to say. Then he says a few interest groups
are driving the government', but he declines to say who the interest
groups are and to talk about them.
He talks about starting with economic honesty. This is the same
person who, for one week before the 1953 election, decided not to tell
the Australian public what the Secretary to the Treasury told him. That
is, that the Budget deficit wasn't $ 6 billion it was $ 9.6 billion. This is
the same person who talks about no more fiscal slight of hand while
when he was Treasurer he never, ever, published forward estimates of
receipts, ever. And, only forward estimates of outlays for one year.
This Government publishes forward estimates of outlays and forward
estimates of receipts and the budget or surplus balance.
He says he will provide a degree of predictability about the level
and stability of tax rates'. Peter Costello says they won't rise.
Apparently, he has now amended that upon more mature reflection
because he has been caught out.
It is the most empty vacuous set of statements that I have seen from a
major party leader. This is Fightback, the rhetoric of Fightback,
without the policies and the mathematics.
J: Mr Howard said he made it quite clear that this speech was never
going to include detailed policies.
PM: Because he doesn't have any. This was his big opportunity to tell us
where he wants to take Australia. What do you get from this? You
don't even get a direction from him. It is so vacuous there is not even
a direction. All these people in the media who wanted a contest at the
next election, I'm sorry you're not going to get one. You are not going
to get one because they are not up to it. To have a contest you have
got to have the other side with some policies. They are not in the hunt.
This is the weakest effort I have seen by an Opposition Leader in the
years I have been here.
J: You are very quick to jump on it.
PM: Because I am very quick to read it. You could get across it in
pages. You could read the thing in a couple of minutes.
J: Is it Mr Howard's " Things That Matter"?
PM: The ' Things That Matter" that is, Mr Downer's " Things That Matter"
looks positively solid compared to this dross. And, of course,
Fightback! was an absolute mammoth of a document, compared to this
rubbish.
J: Mr Keating, Mr Howard said he was going to do a series of headland
speeches this is only the first, doesn't he shouldn't he be able to
take the chance to have a series of speeches outlining the broad detail
of where he wants to go?
PM: This is his first this was the one that was going to tell us the
directions. This was the one that was going to give us an indication
about the sort of government he would have, and you have got no idea
from him, about the sort of government he would have. And when it
comes to the hard things, about how would he cut $ 10,000 million out
of outlays? I mean, who would be cut? Payments to pensioners?
Payments to schools? Payments to the low-paid? And here he is
talking about supporting battlers, and during his period of office, lowpaid
people suffered enormously he has not supported any wage
increase for Australian workers since 1981, bar the last 2. That was 2
lots of So, he supported $ 16 wage increase in 14 years.
J; Does this strategy make it harder for you for the Government to pin
him down, to attack him, because he isn't presenting his policies until
closer to the election, and you are relying on attacking him from when
he was last in Government that was 12 years ago?
PM: No. I'm relying on attacking him for the fact that he wants to replace
to supplant this Government as the Government of Australia. He has
no right with rubbish like this. And though the media might want a
contest, they have no right in supporting rubbish like this.
J: He has challenged you to set out what you think the reserve powers of
a President should be under an Australian republic in your major
speech will you?
PM: My challenge to him is to say whether he is for a republic or not
simple enough question. Forget the modalities for the moment is he
in favour? I mean, it's not much of an ask, is it, to say " is it not
unreasonable to ask the alternative Prime Minister whether he believes
an Australian should be our Head of State?"
J: But what about...
PM: And he won't answer it.
J: But what about his challenge to you?
PM: Just a second he will not answer that simple question it's not his
challenge to mine that is the core matter. Unless he says he is in
favour of an Australian republic, he disqualifies himself from having
any part in the debate for a shift to a republic. And, of course,
tomorrow night I will be saying precisely where the Government stands
on this issue.
J; So you believe Mr Howard has missed his opportunity to talk to
Australians?
PM: He missed his opportunity in the middle 1970s, when he left us with
double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and the highest
Government spending in our history he should have been drummed
out of the regiment of Australian politics. He has hung around, and
waited to see all of his rivals retire, and in their paucity remember, he
is their third choice in this term: he is their third choice after Hewson
and Downer, and now you can see why he was their third choice. He
is recycled, empty and vacuous.
J; So, does seeing this make you want to call an election soon?
PM; To see it makes me a little bit sad about the state of the Liberal Party
and the alternative government. I mean, as an Australian, I have
always believed that it is in the nation's best interests always to
keep on the boil, two competent parties of government. What this
speech proves is that there is only one the Australian Labor Party.
J: Would you like to see a real contest?
PM: The media will, but how are you going to get one when you have got a
candidate such as Howard, who has got no policies? I mean, how can
you get a contest when you have got someone without any substance?
J: You say the journalists can't read opinion polls...
PM: I think the last election proved that.
J: Can you give us your reading of the 2 conflicting polls that came out
today?
PM: I told you I think the Government is strengthening its underlying vote.
We have now got the country growing at a consistent and sustainable
rate, we have low inflation, we have the Budget back to surplus, we are
seeing the Government now continuing on its big social policies such
as Working Nation. We are having success with the long-term
unemployed, the Government is about to announce its response on the
republic, I have just come back from Japan building that bilateral
relationship, we are working again on the strength and growth of
APEC. I mean, these are the things from a Government of substance.
After having just passed the Land Fund, and the year before last,
Mabo. How could you compare a Government that is doing these
things, with this worn out Liberal party?
J: Well, how do you explain the poll that shows John Howard and the
Coalition streaking ahead?
PM: I think the public have always got a little needle into governments
they want you to earn your freight. They say " how are you going to
vote?", [ and they reply] " oh well, I don't know I might throw a vote to
the Coalition", and that's to put a bit of ginger in the system. That's
probably always been there, but we're in the position where we want to
be right now, and that is one out and one back the best position to be
in Australian politics.
ends.