PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
INTERVIEW WITH RON EDWARDS, RADIO 6PR, 26 JULY 1995
E& OE PROOF COPY
RE: There's a lot happening on the national political scene recently,
including the impact of the Queensland election. I'm joined on the line
by Prime Minister Paul Keating. How are you?
PM: How are you, Ron?
RE: Now, Paul, first of all what is your assessment of the outcome of the
Queensland election. We now know that Wayne Goss is back
narrowly, is that a setback for you?
PM: I don't think necessarily it's a setback. Put it this way it would have
been a clear setback for the Labor Party nationally had he lost but he
hasn't. It is a reduced majority and we always like to see our majorities
maintained and I just think it means that he has made clear he will try
to understand why there was such a vote of disaffection with his
Government and I think from a Federal perspective we will be
interested in what we believe that sort of inquiry brings.
RE: Yes, he certainly said that, there will be an inquiry. Ass you move
around the electorate, people like Wayne Goss and yourself get
messages from the voters about the things that are worrying them.
What are they saying to you at the moment, the worries that they have
got as far as the economy or politics are concerned?
PM: Well I think there is doubt about the economy and this is the great pity
I think because we have just had, you know, confirmation again today
of low inflation, in today's consumer price index. We have got the
economy running at a sustainable rate of growth. We are seeing, last
week, 50,000 job growth for the month, bringing employment, since the
last election, to 630,000, which is an enormous number. We are
seeing strong investment, the stock market hit its high for the year a
week ago. So I do think, though, there is this view about that, you
know, John Howard put around this sort of terrible little lie which the
Reserve Bank Governor exposed, that we are having five minutes of
2
economic sunshine. Well after the next quarter, we will have had four
straight years of growth. Come the next quarter, we will have had four
straight years of growth since the recession in 1991 and I think the sort
of attempts by the Opposition to sabotage the economy, to say that all
is not well, it does eke its impact on the community.
RE: Are you satisfied with the gains on the interest rates front because
there was some doubt earlier in the year as to what the direction of
rates would be? We have seen recently some encouraging signs.
What does the future hold for us then?
PM: Well I think the most encouraging sign there was basically the long
rates which are set in the market place. We saw them come down by
about a percentage point, that is the ten year bonds, and that was
because of the Budget coming back into surplus and the main guide to
where interest rates will go in the longer term is inflation and demand.
We have got inflation today making clear that we have basically left
behind now high inflation, further confirmation of low inflation. You
would remember that we did the Accord a couple of weeks ago, which
says that the wages system will be run to produce 2 to 3 per cent
inflation.
RE: So you think you have been able to lock in some industrial stability and
reasonably moderate wage increases?
PM: I thought the Accord Mark VIII was a phenomenal document. I mean
here we are in a period of industrial disputation lower now than at any
time since we have been keeping the records and with the trade union
movement endorsing the Reserve Bank's inflation target of 2 to
3 per cent. That is a tremendously encouraging outcome for
Australians, I believe, and we are seeing the economy come to a
sustainable rate of growth, Ron. So you put all those things together
and I think people can look forward to, and of course that phenomenal
employment coming through, I think people can look to the
continuation of stable, low inflationary, economic growth with
employment.
RE: Does it worry you when we get our monthly balance of payments
result?
PM: Well some worry me more than others, of course. But the Opposition
are going around talking about the Current Account Deficit as if it is
the only economic indicator which matters. 2 1/ 2 years ago the only
indicator which matters was the right to a job unemployment and the
Government committing itself at the election to bring Australia, to bring
more employment to this country. As I said to you, we have had
670,000, I think I said earlier 630,000. It is actually 670,000 jobs in
2 1/ 2 years. So that is the hardest thing for any Government in
Australia to deliver, that is growth and employment. That is what,
in fact, we have delivered. And I think about the current account,
people look at that and the debt and if they take John Howard at his
word, they would swear blind the debt was their's. If BHP decides to
spend $ 1.8 billion on a new iron plant in Western Australia, that is for
the BHP Board to decide. It is for lenders abroad to decide whether
they want to lend, that company, or this economy, on those sorts of
investments. In other words, they're consenting decisions between
consenting adults. For the Government to be saying to BHP how dare
you build a new iron plant. Of course if BHP wants to build an iron
plant, that is for them. But this notion that the debt belongs to every
Australian person. I mean when Alan Bond's company failed to be
able to meet its obligations to the tune of $ 3 to $ 4 billion, from
memory, there were no mums and dads picking that up. It was picked
up by the banks who lent from abroad.
RE: Well if we can talk tactics for a minute and about John Howard.
John Hewson gave you a large target with Fightback and all its
ramifications. John Howard has declared that he will give you very
little targets and when you look at it as a tactic, it seemed to work for
Mr Borbidge in Queensland and, at this stage, it seems to be working
for John Howard. How do you propose to counter that?
PM: I think the old hardline, right wing, John Howard is coming out, it is
seeping out from the pores of his skin because when he did the
Headland speech, his last one so-called Headland speech the
definition of a Headland speech is the thing you say when you are
saying nothing and get front page coverage. But it has worked so far
for him. But in this last one he said he is going to hop into labour
market reform and have big cuts in Government spending. Now that is
a confirmation that there is no shift in his policy position. Every
Australian person should understand when John Howard talks about
labour market reform, he is talking about cutting the wages of working
Australians. He doesn't believe there should be a no disadvantage
test. See at the moment, under our legislation, if someone makes an
individual contract, or makes an enterprise bargain, we have a no
disadvantage test to make sure that worker, or groups of workers, will
not be worse off. Howard will abolish that and basically push the
minimum, break the Award minimums, which underpin the Australian
industrial relations structure. So he is out there saying, and I think
people should understand this, whenever John Howard says " labour
market reform", read: cutting wages of low to middle income
Australians. That is what he means. When he says, as he did in the
Headland speech as well, " we are going to have a large cut in
Government spending", read: cuts to pharmaceutical payments for
pensioners; read: cuts in payments to schools; read: cuts in family
support payments because as Ralph Willis can tell you and I can tell
you having been through the Commonwealth Budget now on about
or 22 occasions, we know the outlays pretty well and the other
Ministers in this country. I can assure you there is no way you can cut
$ 8to$ 10 billion out of Commonwealth spending without cutting
pensioners pharmaceuticals, or payments to schools, or family
support.
RE: Mightn't John Howard say that you are putting words in his mouth, he
hasn't said all of those things?
PM: No, but he has made that very clear. I mean he has made it clear that
he is going to have he said big cuts in Government spending in the
Headland speech. They're talking about a 1 to 2 per cent change in
GDP. That is somewhere between $ 5 and $ 10 billion. Those sort of
cuts can only come from the areas I am telling you, Ron.
RE: Right.
PM: And I am just saying that advisedly. There are no other areas where
that sort of money can come from. And what he has made very clear
about industrial relations, is that there will be no disadvantage test
that will be gone. The no disadvantage test will be taken away and
you will either take the individual wage contract, or you will take the
sack. Now he has this little twist on it saying " oh well, look, we will
leave people to opt out of the Award system if they wish". He is
presuming that Australians don't know that roughly 1.8 million of them
every year, change jobs. For a start you have got all of the people
leaving school taking up jobs for the first time. You have got migrants.
You have got the people who change jobs. About 1.6 to 1.8 million
Australians change jobs every year. Every time they do, they will lose
the Award protections, lose holiday leave loadings, they will lose the
overtime commitments, all of the other elements which make up the
Award will be put asunder and people will be pushed back onto some
unspecified minimum.
RE: Paul, can we now move to your side of politics? Carmen Lawrence
has sustained some political damage in recent days because of events
here in Western Australia. How do you propose to handle this?
PM: Well she has sustained some damage because you have got the
executive branch of Government extending its long arm by employing
a former judge to inquire. The former judge has been given a job by
Richard Court. It is just the same were I to appoint a
Royal Commission to inquire into what John Howard said to
Malcolm Fraser about " bottom of the harbour" tax schemes. What they
said that night after a Cabinet meeting. What they said on the way
into the Cabinet meeting. What they said in Mr Fraser's office.
RE: Wouldn't she be better advised to actually come out and say what
occurred because, at this stage, it looks as though she is trying to
avoid this inquiry process?
PM: No, I think, what she is doing is defending the right of a Member of
Parliament, a traditional right of a Member of Parliament, and
Members of Parliament to go about their activities as an executive,
or as a Cabinet, against the wishes of the executive branch of
Government. In other words, she is defending the right of her
Government and her former Government and her former Cabinet
meetings to enjoy the Parliamentary protections away from an
incoming executive Government.
RE: So you would support her current tactic of going through the court
processes?
PM: Yes because you see Richard Court is abusing for a start he is
abusing the taxpayers of Western Australia by blowing this money on
what is essentially only and it is exclusively a political matter. There is
no question of impropriety here, illegality here. It is only a political
matter.
RE: He would say he is trying to get at the truth of what occurred at the
time.
PM: Well I can say I want to get at the truth. Why did John Howard refuse
the so-called telephone book of letters on the " bottom of the harbour"
tax schemes from Bill O'Reilly, the then Tax Commissioner. I could get
to the truth too and set up a Royal Commission into it. Get Mr O'Reilly
back, get Howard back, get Fraser back. You know what would you
think about that?
RE: So your view is, at this stage, you are standing behind
Carmen Lawrence and see how the events work out?
PM: Absolutely and what you have got here is a cynical abuse of power by
the Western Australian Government extending the judge sitting as
the Royal Commissioner is acting for the Government for
Court [ Richard], the Premier. It is not a legal matter. It is not the court
system. It is not the Parliament, or the court system. This is the
executive and this is a matter of principle. That is, whether the
executive has this power, or ought to have this power, to be able to
require a Member of Parliament to come and account, when Members
of Parliament have enjoyed these protections way back into English
and British history.
RE: Right. Paul, just finally very quickly, policy on France in relation to
nuclear testing. Are we doing enough?
PM: Well we have certainly, I think, made it very much more uncomfortable
for the French Government. I think that all Australians were affronted
by the fact that France, a democracy, is itself affronting smaller States
in the Pacific and we have now, by withdrawing our Ambassador, by
curtailing our defence arrangements with them, by now seeing what we
can support in the United Nations on this issue, by proselytising in the
press as I have in France. All these things, I think, have put pressure
on President Chirac and that pressure is now also coming from the
European States and, more recently, from Japan. I think that is the
thing to do. I have got John Howard who is now these days running
around saying anything that he thinks will suit the moment. Yesterday
he was telling a group of school children that he would suspend
uranium exports to France, when he knows full well that it is not his
Party's policy. He is, at the same time, saying he is thinking about
sending a frigate to Mururoa Atoll. But what happens when the frigate
gets turned around by a French frigate? Do we walk off with our tail
between our legs or do we fire on it. Let me just say this Ron, I don't
think Australians want us to go firing on French ships.
RE: I don't think so.
PM: OK, thanks Ron.
RE: Thanks Paul.
ends