C7-I
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE ACTING PRIME MINISTER, THE HON KIM BEAZLEY
MP, DOORSTOP, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, PERTH, 19 JULY 1995
E& OE PROOF COPY
KB: Well last night Mr Howard kept his promise to make no publication of his
views on just about any serious policy matter confronting the nation,
except one area. He did elaborate his position on industrial relations and
what he effectively undertook, or promised, was to remove an essential
underpinning to the wages and conditions of a very large number of
Australians. There is no reason why this should be so, we have just had
a set of figures come out on industrial disputation which shows it at just
about its lowest level ever historically. We have a very high profit share.
We have real productivity gains, some 25 per cent, over the last decade.
A 40 per cent improvement in our international competitiveness. Ordinary
working Australians do not deserve this uncertainty, this attack,
effectively, on their lifestyle. Any questions?
J: Do you think ordinary Australians should be paying Carmen Lawrence's
legal bills?
KB: I think ordinary working Australians should not be having to pay for this
Royal Commission at all not one cent. But this was started by Richard
Court as a political log-rolling exercise to the detriment of the taxpayers of
Western Australia and a cynical usei -on his part, of the Royal
Commission powers and it has proved nothing and there is, of course,
now a proceeding in the Supreme Court which puts us in a situation
where it is extraordinarily difficult to sensibly comment on these things
except, of course, to go to the motives of the Government in establishing
this Royal Commission.
J: What about her motives? Dr Lawrence has gone to extraordinary lengths
to stop this Royal Commission. Surely that must raise serious questions
about what she did.
KB: This is the equivalent, on Richard Court's part, of when we came into
office we decided that it would be a matter of great public interest if we
inquired into the proceedings of the Cabinet, which had met and
repeatedly refused to address the ' bottom of the harbour' tax evasion
schemes. If a Commonwealth Government had decided to put a
Royal Commission on that in place, you would have accused us of
introducing dictatorial star chamber powers in Australia and you would
have been right.
J: How long can you support Dr Lawrence, given what has been said about
her in the Commission?
KB: Well you know very well that you shouldn't be discussing matters which
are obviously now going to be the substance of argument in the Supreme
Court. But Dr Lawrence has got over the years a very substantial level of
confidence amongst ordinary Western Australians and she has got that
by the dignity with which she held her office and the effectiveness with
which she ran a Government and I don't think that the proceedings of a
Royal Commission given the motives, the obvious political motives, that
went to its creation are going to alter that.
J: Does the Federal Government have a bottomless pit of money that it can
use to kick the ( inaudible]?
KB: Does Richard Court have a bottomless pit of money to keep putting one
fanaticism, or one obsession, of his after another up for public
expenditure, along with his taxation. I mean, the question is who started
it? Who started rolling in? You know very well when you set up a Royal
Commission that people are going to defend themselves before the Royal
Commission, they are going to take a legal position there, in fact, as I
understand it, Richard Court has offered those who are participants
before it, some form of legal assistance. So he has obviously anticipated
that the many millions of taxpayers money that is going to be spent on
this particular political exercise of his, is taxpayers money worth
spending. But there are consequences. Once you start that process
rolling, once you start a process that goes to the heart of the difference
between the Parliamentary operations and the judicial system, once you
go down the road of a Royal Commission that is based not on an
investigation of impropriety, illegality, maladministration or whatever,
which are the normal reasons why you call a Royal Commission, these
situations will occur.
J: Is it not an advantage to Carmen Lawrence, particularly as the evidence
already heard will go unchallenged for at least a week?
KB: Well I think that at the end of the day you are going to see, if there is any
discussion on these matters, there will be of course counters put into any
particular proposition which is raised. But I think you have got to take a
step back from the Royal Commission and its proceedings and go to the
issues that caused its creation, or the motives that underlay its creation.
And when you do that you are going to see I think the public have a
-71-. 771 .7.
very considerable discount on any particular outcome that comes from the
Royal Commission.
J: The Commission is not about Richard Court, the Commission is about
Carmen Lawrence. If she has shown to have behaved improperly or
abused her power, will she continue to enjoy the Federal Cabinet's
support?
KB: No this Commission is about Richard Court. This Commission is a
Commission that was established for political reasons, by Richard Court
and for that reason there will be a high level of political discounting on
any outcome.
J: [ inaudible] for political reasons as well?
KB: Carmen is challenging to defend herself, which she is entitled to do.
If somebody sets up a political Royal Commission, or political basis in his
motive in setting up a Royal Commission, and sends it after you, do you
just stand mute?
J: [ inaudible]
KB: Look, don't ask me for analyses of public opinion. You go out there and
read it yourself. In so far as I can see public opinion around Carmen
Lawrence, two things stand out. The first is that she has a very high level
of public regard in this State, for good reason. Secondly, I think that there
is an understanding by the public of the political motivation that underlay
the creation of this Royal Commission and there will consequently be,
whatever the outcome, a discount attached to it and whatever is said in
evidence, a discount attached to it because of the underlying motives that
went into setting it up and I don't think anything that is going to be said at
the Royal Commission, if indeed-it proceeds, is going to make any
difference to that at all.
J: Can I just ask you about the funding again? Is there a limit? Has the
Federal Government set a limit on how much it will spend on these legal
challenges?
KB: Has Richard Court set a limit on how much it will cost for the Royal
Commission?
J: He has said 1.25, somewhere around there?
KB: Oh, yes, and the rest.
J: But I am talking about the Federal Government funding
Carmen Lawrence's challenge. Has there been any talk of a limit on how
much money people will spend?
KB: Obviously, nobody is going to go through an unlimitless exercise. But the
fact of the matter is, and this is not an exception in the case of this Royal
4
Commission, it has been found in most of the Royal Commission's
established, that is why you need to have a very good reason to set up a
Royal Commission. That is why you need to have it as a Royal
Commission operating with serious intent. But when you set up a Royal
Commission it is going to be extremely difficult to put a price tag on it. It
is very important, therefore, to remember who started this.
J: merchandise imports What is your comment on that?
KB: Well the import figures are, of course, in line with the figures the
Government put out when it revised its views about the current account
deficit earlier in the year and that was announced by Ralph Willis. There
are some encouraging signs in the import figures that have come in.
Consumption imports are down. The capital imports are up to a degree.
But, overall, imports have fallen in the course of the last month and that is
encouraging.
J: Is it a sign that the economy is slowing down?
KB: Well, it is a sign that we was predicted by the Government in the Budget
that the current account deficit would peak during the course of this
financial year and start to decline in terms of a percentage of GDP is
probably going to come true. That, in part, does reflect some slowing in
the economy to the extent that it was predicted by the Government in its
Budget.
J: Mr Beazley do you still have every faith in Carmen Lawrence's version of
events leading up to the Commission?
KB: I have absolute faith in Carmen Lawrence. I mean she is a very good
person. She has been a very good Premier of this State and she
deserves better treatment by her successor.
J: So her press secretary is lying?
KB: Oh don't be silly.
J: [ inaudible]
KB: The question of the legal support for Carmen Lawrence was a matter that
was determined by Cabinet, yes. Now the extent to what those legal
costs involve is, of course, going to be a matter kept constantly under
review. But there are important issues at stake here and those issues, of
course, go in fact although I don't expect people to be terribly interested
in this to the very heart of the relationship between Parliament, the
Cabinet and the judicial system. These are issues which cannot be likely
glossed over by the initiative of one particular person involved in the
process. They are hard issues which, when they get raised, have to be
teased out and they will be teased out to their conclusion. Now, as I said
before, we didn't start this. It was started by Mr Court and we warned at
the point of time when it started, Iall these sorts of ramifications were likely
to flow, now they are flying.
J: But has Dr Lawrence got Cabinet's unanimous support as far as the
funding goes?
KB: Oh well with her exception, of course, she wasn't there. But as far as the
question that she would be allowed to be supported in her legal activities,
yes that was the unanimous decision of Cabinet.
J: [ inaudible]
KB: It is not for me to characterise the Royal Commission. I mean the Royal
Commissioners are of course, have their own views about their own
integrity and I don't think it is appropriate if these issues are canvassed.
But what we can canvass is what went into their creation and that is what
I have been canvassing very solidly here for the last five minutes.
J: [ inaudible].. budget blow out in superannuation costs?
KB: What was assumed in that particular paper was a much high level of
growth in jobs than the Government was predicting and what it did its
figuring on. Of course if that was to occur, that would be terrific news and
were it to occur, it wouldn't just mean an increase in the amounts that the
Commonwealth would have to set aside for superannuation. Vastly
beyond that would have been a substantial increase in revenue receipts,
so there would be no blowout if those figures were in fact to be achieved.
J: So the article is too optimistic as far as job growth goes?
KB: Well it is not the Commonwealth's figures on job growth anticipation, no.
Well somebody was asked, some Treasury official was asked, well what if
the job growth is better than the Commonwealth thinks, what will happen?
Well, obviously, on one side of the ledger, the Commonwealth will have to
pay out more money for its superannuation undertaking. But, on the other
side of the ledger and vastly greater amounts, would come in revenue
from the taxation receipts with more people in the workforce.
J: Hasn't the Treasurer admitted that the Government has underestimated
the costs of superannuation?
KB: I think the Treasurer has said that the particular paper that was produced
was based on a set of estimates that was well beyond what the
Government's estimates were. But I mean that would be unmitigatedly
good news were it to occur. The increase in the cost of the
superannuation payout would be neither here nor there, alongside the
increase in the receipts, but would pay for it, they would pay for it many
times over if that was the sort of job growth that we were going to see. It
would be great if it happened. But we are not anticipating it happening.
ends