PRIME MINISTER
E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE 13 JULY 1984
JOURNALIST: How do you think it went?
PM: I think it was an excellent donference. I think that I
can say on the evidence available to all of us that the
Conference turned out in the way I asked it to in my speech
on Tuesday that is that the great majority of delegates
came to conclusions, made decisions, resolutions which were
couched in an understanding of the responsibility, not just
to the Party, but to the people of Australia as a whole. And
certainly there has been both a ringing endorsement of the
approach of the Government to this stage and the provision of
a basis for it to continue in the future in the same direction.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, on industry policy this morning. Given
Australia's comparative advantage in the fields of primary
production and mining, don't you think it is rather foolish an~ d
perhaps even dangerous to have an industry policy based, to quote
the new platform, on the need for Australia to bring its trade
pattern into line with other industrialised nations?
PM: Well, you can look at that as you will, I suppose. What
will be done in a way which is totally consistent with that
statement of policy is to do these things for the various
sectors of our economy. We will recognise the truth that the
great primary industries remain fundamental to the eternal
welfare of Australia and as generation of wealth here and also
in terms of earning considerable export income for us and we
will be doing those things which are necessary both here and
in our relations with other countries to expand the possibilities
for the primary sector. In regard to the mineral sector, we will
clearly be pursuing policies which enable the expansion of that
sector in a way which will utilise both foreign and domestically
generated capital. And in regard to the manufacturing sector we
will develop policies which can be looked at in two ways both
industry specific in a way we have with the steel industry, with
the automotive industry and we will be adopting policies, which
as I put in my contribution today, which will take account of the
industries that are here to try and make those that can be made
more efficient, more efficient. We will try through the variety
of policies, some indication of which we have already given to
develop new ones. Now, that is precisely what we have been doing
to this date and doing with very considerable successs and I
believe that the policy and the general statements that have been
adopted today give us a mandate to proceed in that fashion, Max.
I have no problem in noting and appreciating the contribution
that will be made to the formulation of that policy as a mandate
for proceeding with the general strategy which has been so
successful to this point.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, where does the Left Wing of the
Party go, given that they lost every major issue before the
Conference. Have they got a future in the Labor Party or what
do they do?
PM: Well if you look at the history of the Labor Party, there
is always a left, a right and a centre and I have no feeling
that there is going to cease to be a left. I think I would say
this, and I hope they won't regard it as gratuitous, indeed I
know from some observations that there is. this feeling within
the Left itself, that they need to have a-good look at themslves,
that the positions adopted and the arguments embraced and the
style pursued, seemed to many people, including many of their
own, to be somewhat less than ideally suited to the conditions
of the Party, the Government and the country as we go through
1984 and into ' 85. 1 think there will be some re-thinking. I
hope so.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, was there an attempted double cross
on the conscience vote on abortion?
PM: I don't think that is fair to put it as a double cross. I
understood from what was said to me that it was being made
clear that inrespect of that motion there was no intention to
use that as the basis for repealing the conscience vote and I
understood that if any attempt were made those that had been
associated with that proposal yesterday would not support any
attempt in this Conference-to repeal that. And that was
essentially the position that those people did adopt. I think it
was very interesting to see how the approach that was moved by
Delegate Giles was repudiated by so many, not just the Right, and
the Centre Left, but many Within the Left itself couldn't bring
themselves to vote for that.
JOURNALIST: Do you still hold the view that you expressed in
the 1982 Conference opposed to the capital gains tax?
PM: That's a good question. I support without reservation the
policy that was adopted at the 1984 Conference. It was the one
that I advocated. It was the one that I had been associated with
in the lead-up to the Conference. Let me make it quite clear,
as I have said on a number of occasions, -that what this Government
has been attempting to do since we have been in-office is to
develop a constructive debate within the community, not just only
in EPAC, but of course that is a most relevant forum. We have
been attempting to develop a constructive debate within the
community about the whole tax structure. I have said I think in
a large press conference before, we have got to try and get an
understanding of the way in which the comumunity, individuals and
organisations want to make part of their income available to
government for the purpose of providing services through
government back to the community and the sensible thing to do is
to have that debate in a way which covers the whole range of tax
on the one side and services provided on the other. And I am
very encouraged by two things. Firstly, before we got to the
/ 3
' 1
Conference there had been such a positive response from the
business community and the trade union movement and other
organisations to enter into this dissussion. -And secondly,
by the way in which the Conference endorsed that approach.
Now, as we go into next year, that debate will be encouraged
and I am confident that as a result of that const ructive,
consultative approach, Australia will be able to move towards
a position where it has total tax base which satisfies, as I
say, the two criteria of efficiency and equity and once we
have done that this community is going to be very much better off.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, the Centre Left and the Right delivered
quite respectable and moderate policies this time. Would you
like to see the Conference system reformed in some way so that
the government at a later date is-not embarrassed by say a major
left wing policy..
PM: If what?
JOURNALIST: If at a later date the Left Wing embarrassed the
Government on some major issue of policy?
PM: Between conferences do you mean?
JOURNALIST: Well, would you like to see the Conference systerm
reformed in some way?
PM: Well, could I pass onto an observation that was made by
Alan Griffiths this morning. I met the business representatives
at the Conference. There was a gathering at about 8.30. And in
introducing me to the business representatives there he said
he proposed what seems to me on reflection a rather radical
reform. He thanked them for being there and wondered how we could
continue the association and said I look forward to seeing you at
the next bicentennial conference. I thought that was probably
taking it a bit far.
Now wait a minute, the question deserves more than that lighthearted
observation. Look, Greg, when you are trying to work
out what is the best way of enabling an input from the Party
organisation of the formulation of policy, I guess you can always
. say that there are better ways than what exists, but whatever
you do, factionalism is going to continue within the. Party. But
let me say this, that I don't believe that there will be any
attempt by any of the factions now that the Conference is over
to embarrass the Government. And the second point I would make
is that I have total confidence in the capacity of this Government
to continue to deliver the goods in regard to the aspirations of
the Australian people in the important areas of the economy and
the areas of social welfare. Now, to the extent that the
Government continues to deliver the goods, as it will, then the
Party will have no reason to want to embarrass the Government.
And I am totally confident that by the time we get to the next:
Conference in 1986 that the Government will again get the support
and the clear support of the great majority of the Phrty. I'm
totally confident about that and I don't see any reason to change.
It's quite clear, I think, that in some branches of the Party
there will be moves by some sectors to try and strengthen theiLr
/ 4
position and that may produce some interesting changes.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, you said this morning there are some
areas of concern in the car industry plan. What are those
and would you agree that the whole thrust of the Conference
policy in relation to industry protection was much more
protectionist and interventionist than the Government than
the Government was pursuing up until now?
PM: No, in regard to the second and in regard to the first,
one sector of the major production union, the vehicle builders
union, had expressed some concern, '. but overwhelmingly the
view of the trade union movement as expressed through the ACTU,
was totally supportive of the Goveprnment policy, as it should
be because it is an excellent policy.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, to go back to taxation. Would you
anticipate being able to be a bit more specific about the
Government's plan during the election campaign or do you think
that you will still be put in this position of a wide-ranging
debate? PM: I think the debate, the consultative process, will be going
on into 1985. I will obviously be talking with the Australian
electorate in the post-Budget situation about where we are and I
believe that the Australian public will be very satisfied about
where we are after the Budget and then I will be explaining to
them the ideas that we have about involving them in these
processes of discussion and again I believe that that is what
they will want of this government.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, will the Government be offering the
rehabilitated David Combe a job and if so, have you got anything in
particular in mind?
PM: No, there wasn't any talk about offering a job. All
t-hat has been said is what ought to have been said, made clear
and that is that there is no blackball against David. He
has talents and capacities which he may think are appropriate
in respect of some jobs that may arise and he knows now and
I'm glad that it has been done. He now knows that if he wishes
to apply for anything that may arise then he is able to go
into that application process free of any stigma or blackball.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the important question
of light bulbs what exactly did go through your mind?
I'll tell you. I'll give you one observation that
was made by my Deputy Prime Minister who was sitting on my
right who, as you know, he exhibits his beliefs and his
commitments and his faith through the Conference and he
made the observation he said Prime minister, do you realise
that in extremis you invoked the Almighty? There' s just one
thing I thought my God if that is a shot, they can'It miss
from there. That was all.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on uranium, now-that you have an
unambiguous pro-uranium policy as part -of the platform,
does that mean that any member-~ who advocates an anti-uranium
policy outside the councils of the Party faces the risk of
discipline? Well I, as you know, am not a strict disciplinarian.
I rather try and operate on the basis of getting co-operation.
I want to say this though, that I would think that if the
decision had gone the other way and I had then been out
advocating something else that there would have been a multitude
of motions passed and actions suggested against me or anyone!
who'd taken that position. So I would hope that those who
have had the fairest of all possible opportunities to put their
case and try and persuade the Party to an anti-uranium position
will accept the logic of that. That does not of course meank
that within the Party itself they don't have the freedom to
try and move to change that. But I believe that any action
outside the Party would not be proper and I don't think that:
the authorities of the Party would view it with favour. Nowr
I don't say that in a threatening way, but I hope that now
those who have been so active will recognise that a clear
decision has been taken. It's going to be implemented and
I would hope that they would accept it and I think that's what
will happen.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on immigration yesterday you told
the Conference that Mr Peacock basically broke an agreement
he had reached with you. Today we hear, that Mr Peacock
says you're lying. It doesn't augur well for the burying
of an essentially very divisive issue.
No, but what's very interesting, if you notice he said
that I did that, I hoped he used the words. But then went
on to concede that I wasn't. In other words that I had rung
him, he concedes that. A conversation took place, but then
when he realised that the figures came out that we'd changed
our policy, then he couldn't get effect: to his agreement well
I just leave you and the people of Australia to contemplate
that answer, because he knows that the figures that emerged
didn't show any change of policy. The figures that were
available for anyone who wanted to study them showed nothing
other than that this Government continued the policies of the
previous Government. That is, that we allowed to Asian
citizens that come here the same right as anyone else in
respect of family union that they've been exercising that,
I. s 1 ! IT.
P. M. cant... that there had been a voluntary decline relatively
in people coming here from other sources, and if there hadn't
been the same relative taking up of the family reunion by those
here from non-Asian sources. That was not change of Goverrnent
policy, that was a straight continuation of bipartisanship. He
knows the facts. The people of Australia increasingly understand
the facts. And Mr Peacock is going to have to face up, as I said,
to the dilemma that his attempt to get into the gutter via
Hodgman has created f or himself. And that is the position that
he said that they are not in favour of reducing the number of
Asian migrants. They want to restore the balance which
arithmetically and logically means that they are going to have
a quota concept which means more migrants, that they are saying
to the Australian people no less Asians, but more non-Asians
in other words a higher migrant intake. Now as I said at the
Conference it's no wonder we're waiting like Halley's Comet for
the emergence of the specific polic y, because he know's the
dilemuma that his unprincipled responses have got him into.
JOURNALIST: Could ASIO provide some transcripts to sort out
this dispute that's been in this conversation?
Have we got some serious questions?
JOURNALIST: On a Victorian matter, Mr Hawke, do you have an
agreement from the Centre Left to supportthe reaffiliation
of the four unions in September?
That's an internal matter which will work itself out
quite satisfactorily I believe.
JOURNALIST: As a result of the industry policy that was worked
out today can you see the situation of the Government in terms
of consultation with the unions will be setting down for various
industries and manufacturing their investment pricing and employment
strategy? No, not setting down, but I think the steel industry provides
an example where in those particular circumstances out of a
consultation process between the Government and the unions and
the industry, you now have a greater degree of capacity f or others
in the industry ' itself to be involved in consideration of investment
decisions with their employment consequences. And that's not
something which has been imposed upon the industry, it's something
that they've welcomed. And as I said today if you go into that
industry now and talk with management they quite directly express
their strong satisfaction about the new atmosphere and environment
that's come out of that approach. Now I believe that that sort of
thing may be able to be done and is encouraged to be done under
the policies that was adopted today. The essential thing is that
you're not going to have any misrepresentation in this issue
about this Government's policy and its relations with industry.
There's not going to be the imposition of any control or the
attempt to impose planning upon industry. What's going to be
done is what we've successfully shown can happen in the steel
industry and in the automotive industry something that
increasingly industry itself is saying it wants to see and we'll
gladly co-operate with them and with the trade unions to produce
it. 11
JcOeUrRtNaAiLnI SlTe: f t wDiunrgi ngd eltehge atdeesba-tmea deo n thTeu essdtaayt emone ntu ratnhiautm the ALP
would lose electorally on the issue of uranium.. How do you
feel about those remarks by those members.
Well, like so much of their contribution in the debate,
they were wrong. I quoted the factual research material of the
Party which showed, and let me repeat, a clear majority of Labor
voters in favour of the policy that I'd been espousing which has
now been adopted as well as a clear majority of Democrat voters
and the majority of the other voters, a clear majority of women,
and very importantly in respect of one central part of the argument
that's been used by the left that is you must keep uranium in
the ground because this was relevant to the questions of world
peace and disarmament the overwhelming majority, of the order
of 80%, saying that that was nonsense, that. it was a quite
separate issue. And I related to the polling that's been in
the Bulletin on 29 May of this year and to all otherpolling that's
been taken on it--the cl. ear majority of Australian people
have a clear understanding both of the question itself and of
the division between the issue of uranium mining and the issue
of nuclear disarmament and peace. They-aremanifestly separate
issues. And clearly the overwhelming majority of the Australian.
electorate appreciate it. And I make the final point if they
don't approve of the Labor Party's policy in terms of alternative
Governments there's only the Liberal and National: Party who would
mine everything.
JOURNALIST: Do you expect to see in September the National Executive
taking the four unions back into the Party?
I give the same answer as I did to the question from
Michelle Grattan. That's a matter that will be decided within
the processes of the Party and I'm quite confident about the
way it will be resolved.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister do you feel that you're totally bound
by the Platform adopted by the Conference or will you continue
if necessary to interpret policy according to changing circumstances.
Well you notice that the Party has re-affirmed the overall.
resolution that there is the Platform and the rate of implementation
is a matter for the Government. It's a very sensible decision that
they have confirmed. It's been there before and this Government
will operate within and according to the Platform. You may notice
that the Conference on every issue of significance made decision~ s
in accordance with what I indicated. I and the Government wanted.
So clearly we have no problems.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke will you take advantage of Mr Shultz's visit
in the next couple of days to discuss the Conference decision calling
for restrictions on US warship visits.
I have no doubt that that there will be some discussion in
regard to that matter. / 8
JOURNALIST: Do you believe that the creation of the Centre
Left was an important factor in the success of the Conference,
or do you think undue credit was given to them?
PM: Well, you might have noticed, as distinct from yourself,
ZTeg, and others who spent a lot of time obviously thinking
and writing about this, but I have been very relaxed about it.
I am simply saying I repeat here what I have said before
that I think the organisation of the Centre Left was useful
in imposing a discipline, if you like, upon those who grouped
together in that way. I have no doubt that in the absence
of that disciplined organisation we still. would have won. It's
arguable, I think, that perhaps on some issues we may not have
got the margin that we did. So : L'm therefore grateful for the
discipline that was exercised, but I have no doubt that the
results would have been the same, perhaps the dimension on some
issues would not have been as great.
JOURNALIST: Uranium, Sir. Can you suggest what would be your
Government's decision if at some point in the future the French
Energy Utility sought more Australian uranium at the same time
as the French Government, Sir, continued with nuclear testing
in the South Pacific.
PM: Well, quite clearly, we wouldn't respond positively to such
approach in the hypothetical situation you put.
JOURNALIST: Was there any outcome or decision of the
Conference which you would like to have seen emerge a little
differently? PM: No. Look, when you have a week's conference which
Fasses so many platform items and resolution, obviously if
I were to write every one of them they wouldn't have been
written exactly the same. It would be absurd to suggest that.
In a process of taking account of a range of point of views,
I am very satisfied that the basic thrust on all major issues
that I have been developing over very many months, and in
some things in respect of uranium that I have been developing
for years, has been adopted and now, in -the process of having
the main thrust of my position clearly endorsed, that gives
me satisfaction. The fact that I might have worded some
clauses and phrases differently is a mat-ter of no concern to
me at all.
1 1-1 I
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you agree with the personal
view of Senator Walsh, that Australia may the Government
may have to take delivery of the contracted shipments to
France of yellowcake?
PM: I think we may have to do that, yes.
JOURNALIST: What is your interpretation of the resolution
on visits by nuclear warships. Does it, do you think, place
any practical restriction on the visits that US ships have
been making to Western Australian ports,. and if so, will you
implement that resolution?
PM: Quite clearly the resolution is against home porting. It
is saying, let's make sure that we talk with our ally the
United States to ensure that visits don't constitute home
porting. I am perfectly confident that that resolution enables
the situation to emerge which is satisfactory to our ally, the
United States and to us as a firm and committed ally of the
United States.
JOURNALIST: Isn't what you said about uranium and supplies to
France in breach of the Party platform?
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, when are you likely to visit
New Zealand before or after the South Pacific Forum?
PM: When am I likely to go to New Zealand before or after
t-he South Pacific Forum? That's a touchy one, isn't it. I
think it would be after the Forum.