4,, U L,
PRIME MINISTER
E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS NATIONAL PRESS CLUB 27 JUNE 1983
PETER BOWERS: Mr Hawke, I wish to ask you about the decision
taken by Mr Bowen to commit the two existing uranium miners to
renew negotiations for new export contracts. The day before you
left Australia sir, you said that that ministerial decision was
in conformity with party policy on uranium. Will you now say
which part of that extraordinarily complex new' policy permits the
negotiation of new uranium contracts?
PM: I will say in regard to that question Peter, that the
decision to which you refer and the whole question of the
application of the policy of the Australian Labor Party in regard
to the mining and export of uranium will be considered in the
near future within the councils of the Australian Labor Party,
both at the Parliamentary and the organisational levels, and it
is not appropriate in my understanding of the fact that that is
going to take place and it is a discussion in which I will play a
prominent part, that I go any further than that.
TED KNEZ: Prime Minister, in an interview with Radio Australia
last Tuesday, your Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden described
Australia as having a certain innocence of view about regional
and world affairs not unlike America up until the late 1930' s.
He expressed confidence however that like the United States,
Australia will mature quite rapidly. But at present is that
innocence of view, which Mr Hayden spoke of, apparent in your
party's stated policies on uranium, nuclear testing, Vietnam aid
and East Timor?
2
PM: No, I don't believe that it. reflects innocence. I indicated
* in the speech that I made that I have a long association with a
knowledge of this great Australian Labor Party. And one of the
things that you will understand about this great party if you
sudy it, is that it has been a party which has concerned itself
with issues in the social and economic, political and
international area in a way in which reflects passions and
prejudices if you like, of a wide range of people. We are not
some uniform monolithic party and in the processes of arriving at
decisions there is a need, -there always has been and I suppose
there is always likely to be in the future a need to accommodate
differing emphases and differing points of view. And that tends
to mean at times if you want to put it, there is no point in
* running away from it, it tends to mean at times that there's a
lack of specificity, or if you want to put it another way,
there's a range of options which are put, which are there to
accommodate that indisputable fact about the social democratic
parties,, such as ours. I believe that there is sufficient
goodwill and understanding within our great party and within the
various emphases if you like, factions if you want to be more
specific there is sufficient goodwill, ensure that in the days,
the months and the many years ahead that there will be an
appropriate relationship between statements of broad policy and
the application and the timing of application of those policies.
I am not fussed or phased by the publicity and the emphasis which
has been given to this matter over recent times. I am quite
confident and your question is particularly related to the
foreign policy area, or more particularly to that area I am
quite confident that there will be an appropriate relationship
between the broad objectives of policy to which I alluded during
my address. There will be an appropriate relationship between
* those broad purposes of policy and the application of those
policies by this Government. May I finally make the observation
that I have had no closer working relationship with any minister,
* than I have had with my Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden. And I
believe that we are at one in our views about how the policies of
the party will be applied in the terms that I have just put.
JOHN SHORT: Prime Minister, given your statements today on the
need to hold the 1983-84 Budget deficit at $ 8.5 billion how do
you react to calls from some of your ministers, Labor Premiers,
and Caucus members, for the Commonwealth to follow an even more
expansionary economic policy next year and secondly given the
costly proposals your spending Ministers want included in the
August Budget, and calls from the Premiers for more Commonwealth
funds at the Premiers conference this week how can you hold next
year's deficit at your target figure without increasing income
taxes?
3
PM: Let me make two points which I think are relevant. Firstly,
I think you will notice if you listened very closely to the words
I used, and you can check them in the speech that I did not say,
because if really after all I've got to leave something to the
23rd August I did not say that our deficit will be $ 8.5 billion
for 1983-84. I suggest you look at the text. But in saying that
I don't want to in any sense suggest that that ball park is not
the one I have in mind. The second point I make in response to
your question, how do I respond to these observations by some of
the people you've suggested. I respond with the degree of acute
interest, that a Prime Minister should have in these expressions
of points of view. I listen to them, I take note of them, I try
as often as is possible to discern what is the line of
intellectual reasoning if there is one attached to it so, that I
can deal with the thought processes and the thinking. But I then
at the end of the process say to myself, well I think I
understand, economic arithmetic and I believe that we have to
relate our objectives in the longer term to that arithmetic. I
just want to conclude on that point, by saying as I said during
my address that the essential thing in politics, I've always
believed it and I reassert it now, that the essehtial thing is to
get your time scale right. It is an absurdity in the extreme,
particularly I suggest for a Labor Government in a country which
has historically tended to be somewhat conservative, it is a
mistake in the extreme, for a Labor Government to believe that
it's going to be able to achieve in 12 months the objectives that
are intrinsic in its election commitments and in its policy. And
I repeat, I unequivocally said to the people of Australia in
respect of the major issue of employment and unemployment, that
we will arrest the explosion in unemployment, that during the
term of our Government we will start to turn back the levels of
unemployment and we will create half a million jobs. Now that
was the commitment, it was a three year commitment and I am
totally convinced that if we continue on track as we are, we will
achieve what we promised.
TONY O'LEARY, Sydney Sun
Q: Prime Minister, I wanted to ask you about superannuation.
gince the Public Service, through advice from the
Government, has had a crack at our superannuation and our
lump sums, I wondered when the Government would be having
a look at their scheme, which is widely regarded as highly
generous and also I wanted to ask you whether you think
it is appropriate for retired public servants to get a
pension increase in line with the CPI on Saturday while the
rest of us are all supposed to be enduring what is called
a wages pause.
PM: Well there is a thread running through there of let's
drop the Public Service, and let me say, and I'll come to
the specifics of your question, that I repudiate this
concept which seems to be pretty widely spread in our
community of let's bag our favourite target, the public
service. I said two or three years ago in an address I
gave to the International Public Service Association
Conference in Singapore that its really about time
we became a bit mature as a society and understood that
if we are going to as a society achieve the sort of purposes
that are necessary for our society to meet increasingly
complex and difficult times, we ought to recognise that
an efficient and dedicated public service is an indispensible
instrument in the achievement of those purposes. I add
to that, that doesn't mean that we just simply give public
servants what they want, but I want to put on record my
repudiation of this favourite game of * let's bag public
servants. Having said that, I make the next point. I don't
shed any tears in respect of what we did in regard to
superannuation, and if you're talking about what's happened
there I simply say this, that if in fact as a society you
want this government to put itself in a responsible position
where its able to undertake expansionary programs, as we
did in regard to community employment and as we did in regard
to public housing, as we did in regard to private housing,
then the money, the capacity, has to come from somewhere.
And in fact in respect of what we did in regard to pensions,
in what we did in regard to superannuation, we started a move
to make sure that those with the greatest capacity should
make a greater contribution. In regard to the specifics of the
Commonwealth Public Service superannuation schemes I haven't
addressed my mind to it. I am more than relaxed if someone
wants to put up some submission to me about it.
V* Cl, I
MICHELLE GRATTAN, The Age
Q: If Mr. Hayden's mission to Hanoi produces no progress,
will the Government then consider resuming aid to Vietnam
and, if so, when?
PM: That question, if I may say so, Michelle, is based upon,
I will put it as gently as I can, a less than adequate
understanding of how foreign policy operates. If you
believe that in matters as intricate and complex as the
future of Indo-China that a decision, a definitive position,
is going to arise at the end of one visit by Mr. Hayden
at this point to Bangkok to engage in a dialogue with ASEAN
Ministers and then his visit to Vietnam and Laos, then I
simply have to say to you that that isn't the case. You
can't say that consideration of these highly complex issues
is going to be determined by that one visit. Mr. Hayden
certainly doesn't-believe it and I don't believe it and I'm
not going to say anything here or in the next few days
which in any way can compromise the capacity of Bill Hayden
to undertake the important mission on which he is engaged.
It would be absolutely improper and counter-productive to
his capacity to achieve anything in that difficult task if I
were to answer that hypothetical question at this point in
time, and I don.' t intend to.
JOHN LOMBARD, Radio Australia
Q: A couple of quick clarifications. Did President Mitterrand
give you a firm date for the end of the French underground
nuclear testing program in the Pacific? Did the New Zealand
Prime Minister, Mr. Muldoon, give you the date he said he had
been given by President Mitterrand and a more general question,
in the light of the situation that's been repeated in East Timor and
the fact that there is a reported ceasefire between the
Fretilin and Indonesian Forces, do you believe that the Labor
Party resolution of last July has any relevance or validity
today? PM: The answer to your first question is no. The answer to
your second question is yes and if I could add an observation
in regard to what I think it necessary to say is because I'm
put in a competitive bidding position then aren't I. I had a
very useful discussion with President Mitterrand and I tend to
think that his conversation with me'more accurately reflects what I
understand to be the French position. I know that that is not
going to precipitate war between Australia and New Zealand
but, as always, truth must out. Now, in regard to the third
question I believe that what has, as I said in my address, John, now
publicly emerged for the first time is an obviously relevant
consideration. I think you will appreciate that I am not in a
position publicly to display the extent of my understanding of
what is going on, but I have been not unaware of it for some
time and I would think that, or let me put it this way for the
purposes of exposition only, and it is not to be inferred
from what I say that I believe this is the immediate
liklihood. For the purposes of discussion, let me put it
this way if in fact there were to be a freely negotiated
position in East Timor where the Fretilin Forces and the
Indonesian authorities came to what was regarded by both
sides as a workable and into the future arrangement, which
was accepted by both sides, within the framework of East
Timor remaining part of Indonesia, then, of course, that
is relevant and an imperative consideration to be taken
into account, not merely by the Australian Labor Party, but
by anyone concerned with this issue.
GAY DAVIDSON, Canberra Times
Q: If I can bring you right back to Australia and mention
Moore v. Doyle.
PLM: Let's bring us right back. I know everyone is throbbing
t o hear about Moore v. Doyle.
DAVIDSON: In your Boyer lecture you described as there being
different registration requirements under State and Federal
industrial legislation and it meant that Federal
unions must recognise the existence of three separate and
distinct bodies, thats the Federal Union, the State branch and
also the State registered union and you pointed out yourself
that this-was a futile and alm~ ost endless ' source of conflict created
for warring factions you referred to it as. an artificial situation.
Now, Mr. Whitlam certainly attempted to do something about
this. Mr. Cameron did. I believe that Mr. Wran did earlier
in his Premiership. What do you intend doing and how and what
priority will you-give it?
PM: It has a high priority. I understand that work is being
done within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations
under the Ministership of Ralph Willis on this issue I must
say, Gay, I haven't received any recent report on it, but I
understand that they are not merely working on it themselves,
but that discussions are going on with the States, but I just
simply haven't got any up to date information on that. Let me
say this, I mean I go beyond the immediate answer to that
question. I take the view, as I did at the time you mentioned
as I had expressed before then, that one of the most fertile
and annoying sources of industrial disputation arises because of the
split jurisdiction-in this-field of industrial relations. In'
no area of our experience has it been more evident than in the
oil industry where the people particularly of N. S. W.
periodically have been vastly inconvenienced by the attempt to
play one jurisdiction off against the other and I think that
the interests of Australia would, in fact, be served if the
will of Neville Wran and of myself could be reached where the
States could see that it was in their interests and the
interests of their people to have in respect, and I'm not taking
it beyond this, but in the area of industrial relations if we
could have a situation where that possibility was eliminated.
f 7j j.
CHRIS PETERS, New Zealand Press Association
Q: Mr. Muldoon told this Club last week that the relationship
between New Zealand and Australia had matured as the two
nations grew away from Britain and established their own
identities. With the different migration patterns both countries
have altered their characteristics and therefore their values
and outlooks on the world in-general and to each other in
particular. In your address you gave emphasis on Australia's
foreign policy more towards the North to Asia. Is there still
a place in Australia's foreign policy for the ANZAC spirit?
HOw do you believe the spirit has changed. In what ways is it
relevant to the positions the two nations find themselves in and
the directions they are going and how do you see this bond
operating in the future?
PM: Well, let me say that at the dinner which Mr. Muldoon hosted
on Friday night I indicated that I believed that there was a
bipartisan view in Australia that the strengthening of relations
between Australia and New Zealand was inevitable and was in the
best interests of the people of both countries and I attribute
them as I am more than happy to do now to the work of the previous
Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Anthony, and the work that he did in
fashioning that agreement and it was a matter of ease for our
government within a matter of days to confirm our intention to
operate that agreement and in large part that was easy because
Mr. Anthony had ensured in the processes of those discussions
that the Trade Union Movement of Australia and the organised
business community had the opportunity of being fully involved
in the processes and we knew therefore that there was a widespread
acceptance of what was involved in the CER agreement. Now, I simply
repeat here, therefore, what I said then that I think those sorts
of developments are inevitable. The only hiccups that can occur
is if there is a tendency across the Tasman by the Prime Minister
for perceived domestic political purposes to bag my Treasurer and
he is getting on very dangerous ground if he does that.
BARRIE CASSIDY, ABC News
Q: Prime Minister, do you think Kim Hughes should have taken up
your offer to play for Australia?
PM: You couldn't have done bloody, worse, could you.
STEWART SIMPSON, Business Review Weekly
Q: In your speech today you noted on page 16 that our private
investment next year is expected to represent only about 13.4% of
GDP and you said that's more than 1 percentage point below the
average of the last decade. In the light of this do you believe
business has the capacity to pay a 3-4% wage increase in 1983
without being at a cost to employment either existing or future?
PM: Thanks Stewart, that I think is a simply important question.
If you were living in a world of academics or disinterested public
servants there is obviously a case that you could argue that it
may be, according to certain assumptions, more, likely-that you
7 * 1 71,
8.
would get an increase in private investment if there were no
increase in wages before the end of this year. Now, I stress,
A though, so I'm not misrepresented, that I'm saying that its
possible to argue that in some dessicated ideal, theoretical
world. I believe that, of course, there are two things that
you have to say about that. It's not quite as simple as saying
in a situation like that that an increase in wages would
represent an increase in cost to business and therefore that's
the end of the discussion. You know that I've always said
that when you are talking about wages you have to understand
that they are both a cost and an income and that's got to
remain a relevant part of your thinking. The second, and perhaps
if you like more immediately relevant consideration is this,
that we live in a world where, particularly in Australia, the
concept of using your strength and your power to get what you
: 1 chaans bteoe na dvfaonsctee reydo, u r poawrnt icpuelracrelivye db y ionutre repsotlsi tiics als oompeptohnienngt sw, hich
its not to be regarded as surprising therefore that the trade
union movement should have embraced that concept of using
whatever power they have got to advance their perceived interests.
Now, the great future of the period since 5 March and one of the
great achievements of this government is that in a short period
we have started to get both sides of industry to understand that
its not the end of the road and it doesn't represent the
exhaustion of your responsibility to stop the exercise at that
point. In other words, following the Summit, I believe that
business understood that it makes sense they don't say, look, if
there is a 4% -increase in wages that adds to our costs, we'll
get to the bottom line and say, well, we'd be better of f if there
wasn't 4% and the other side of the coin I think that the trade
unions have essentially understood that they don't exhaust their
responsibility if they say look, we've lost 9.2% over this
particular period and what we ought to have is that 9.2% plus
2.2% for the March quarter 83 plus whatever the percentage is for
the June quarter. They are not saying that. They are
recognising that If they went-too far in their wage claims that
could have a counter-productive effect, so I think that on the
balance the business community are saying alright, we would
probably prefer a no increase situation, but we, as responsible
managers, have got to look down the track and that's what we've
all got to do because the strength of the Prices and Incomes Accord
and particularly the wages part of it is this, that if you left it
just to the Adam Smith invisible hand concept that has been so
embraced by people who haven't advanced in some 200 odd years if
you left it to that at the present time, the way the invisible
hand would work would be that there* would probably be-an increase on
average of less than 3-4% in the economic circumstances confronting
us now, but what you have got to look at is that you've got to get
into place now in 1983 an operative and understood and accepted
wages policy which is going to then operate in the expansionary
phase of 1984 and beyond. And even looking at it from the point of
view of the self interest of businessmen I think they overwhelmingly
understand this, that if you get a modest increase in
1983 in the latter part of 83 and accepted, as I believe it
would be, by the ACTU, then their interests are going to be
served as you go into expansion and as a negotiating capacity
would increase in lots of areas of the economy, if the trade
union movement have accepted restraint -as they would see it in
1983 the interests of business are going to be served and the
capacity for recovery are going to be increased in that expansionary
period.
MAX WALSH, The Nine Network
Q: One of the major events of your first hundred days in
office was the rejection by the Senate of tax legislation
involving a collection of some $ 350 million a year. Your
Finance Minister, Mr. Dawkins, has suggested that not
unequivocably that the Government won't re-introduce this in
the August session. It has also been suggested that the
legislation was drawn up hastily and there was some validity
in the criticism levelled by the opposition of Senator
Harradine against this. Could you tell us if the legislation
will be re-introduced in the Budget session or do you accept
that the cost benefit involved in this political cost
benefit is not on and the legislation is no longer to use
one of your expressions realistic or relevant?
PM: No, I can't tell you that because no decision has been
made. It is a matter still to be discussed. When it is I can't
guarantee I will tell you either directly or on the Sunday
program, but it will be announced.
ANNE SUMMERS, Financial Review
PM: The best questioner of them all.
Q: A rather daunting framework with which to have to start. I'd
like to return to the theme raised by Stewart Simpson and the
level of wage increase which you and the Treasurer have argued
would be desirable this year. How confident are you that the
Arbitration Commission will see it your way given that the Union
movement will be arguing for full catch-up and the employers
will be arguing for none and how important is the achieving that 3-4%
wage increase has beenfor maintaining a moderate balance of forces
on-the ACTU executive as currently prevails.
PM: Anne, let me say, first of all, obviously I don't know what
the Arbitration Commission will do and nor will I attempt to
find out. My hunch is, I suppose, having had some experience in
the area, my hunch might be worth a bit more than others I
tend to think that the Arbitration Commission and I say this in
terms of having a knowledge of the way they have operated in
the past and the judgement of things that I have said I tend to
think that they would come out at about the sort of figure we
are talking about. Now, we will certainly be arguing that, as I
have said in the Parliament, that an increase of the order of
3-4% is what is appropriate and any more than that would be
damaging. Now, let me pick up another point in your question
you talk about the ACTU's claim, but you will have noticed you
will have noticed that there have been public statements by the
ACTU and I think they are to be applauded for it, that in
respect of parts of their claim which they put in the 9.2%
that is not being pressed with any sense of immediate relevance.
It's something which they say is appropriate to go on the
back-burner and to be looked at in times of obvious economic
recovery. Now, I applaud them for that and I say I believe that
the employers and the trade union movement would be able to
live with the sort of increase that I and the government
have talked about. I will complete my answer by saying in
respect of that part of your question how important I regard
this. I regard this as fundamentally important.
ROB CHALMERS, Inside Canberra Newsletter
Q: I would like to ask you a question about the Economic
Planning Advisory Council which, of course, is of higher
importance, and you emphasise this, than the Summit. You
are taking the Chair of the Council yourself,-Sir, so it
obviously is of higher importance. There has been some
criticism in the business community that of the 17 members
of the Council, only 4 of those representatives. will be
the private enterprise section. I am including here the
farmers. How would you answer that criticism that 4 out of
17 is not great representation for the people that really
have to enlarge the cake?
PM: Let me just start off the answer by addressing myself to
the last part of your question. That was purely Fraserian
in its position that its only the businessmen who are involved
enlarging the cake. Marvellous assumption. Then I really
believe that workers have something to do with enlarging the
cake. I know it's an heretical thoughE in some circles, but I
do happen to believe it. I also happen to believe governments
are also, by their decisions, going to determine in part what
happens to the size and the quality of the cake. The
substantive point is this that in terms of the composition of
the Economic Planning Advisory Council it represents the outcome,
not only of the discussions of the Summit, but detailed discussion
with the trade unions and business organisations following the
Summit and it represents an agreed position. Now, that means,
obviously, that when you are talking about a thing as diverse as
the business community, those purporting to speak for the
business community say, well look, everyone will share our view,
but the representativesto whom we spoke are satisfied with that
size and composition of EPAC.
BRIAN HILL, The Australian
Q: My question is in two parts. Firsly, bearing in mind what
you said earlier about the deficit and the Premier's Conference,
are you going to tell us what specific arguments the Labor
Premiers made to you yesterday at your meeting in Melbourne
and what your response was and also, given the size of the
projected United States deficit and our own deficit, is it still
appropriate for senior government authorities, for example, the
State Electricity Commissions, to be able to borrow outside the
Loans Council?
a IINZV,. 71 1. 1.
PM: In respect of the first question, hope certainly springs
eternal, doesn't it. The answer obviously is yes, I could, but I won't
Secondly-, in regard to the borrowing by the Electricity
Authority outside the Loans Council operations, I think you
will appreciate again, Brian, as that is going to be a matter
discussed on Thursday and Friday, I really can't give you an
answer on that, but let me make this broad point that I think
that what we have seen in respect of the Electricityj Authorities
generally speaking is that they have peaked in their
borrowing. We would expect that that broadly would be the
position. If, what we were looking at was a situation where you
would expect another 132% increase in the borrowing program
which we have just witnessed, then, that would create a
different context.
MIKE STEKETEE, Sydney Morning Herald
Q: Mr. Hawke, I wonder if I could seek clarification of one
aspect of your speech. When you have said there can be no
foundation for sound relations between Papua New Guinea and
Indonesia unless there are sound relations between Australia and
Indonesia, were you suggesting that if you had taken a tougher
stand on Timor then perhaps there could have been some
implications for the security of Papua New Guinea?
PM: No.
HARRIS, Wellington journalist ( NZ)
Q: In many curbside interviews last week, Prime Minister
Muldoon indicated that there had been indeed a summit between
the two trans Tasman leaders.
PM4: T~ ere had been?
Q: There had indeed been a leaders summit between the two
trans-Tasman leaders and Mr. Muldoon took as many opportunities
as he could to tell Australians and New Zealanders what went
on in those meetings. Could you, Prime Minister, given an
indication as to why you don't hold similar interviews and
tell the nation the contents of those types of meetings?
PM: Well, you're tempting me, aren't you? Well, let me as
genially as I can, in the face of such diabolical provocation,
observe with equanimity that Mr. Muldoon used the opportunity
of the Parliament, his Parliament, because we wouldn't give
him an opportunity in ours, the opportunity in his Parliament
the other day of having a shot at the Hawke Labor Government
and saying to the people of New Zealand that they shouldn't
go for David Lange and the Labor Party there because they
might do what we have done here and I think in these things it
doesn't make much sense to reciprocate publicly. I have not
left him unaware of what I think of this process of engaging
for purposes of domestic political advantage in that sort of
exercise. I take the view, as you may recall from what I said
in the election campaign when questions were asked like this,
I have certainly adhered to it absolutely since I have been in,
s'
I -i 17 1-11,
12.
that it seems to me that once a people has elected a government
and its leadership then you conduct your relationships with
that leader whoever he or she may be on the basis that they
are the representatives. I don't think you use discussions
between leaders and particularly private discussions I don't
think that the interests of your people are advanced if you
use those private discussions for the purposes of partisan
advantage. That's my strong feeling and I intend not to
depart from that principle.