PRIlME MCNDSTFR
E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
INTERVIEW FOR SUNDAY PROGRAM 1 OCTOBER 1984
JOURNALIST: Thank you for joining us Prime Minister.
HAWKE: My pleasure, Robert.
JOtJRANLIST: Every time we open a newspaper or turn on the
radio or televi SiJon these days it seems we get new information
about crime. How bad is crime and corruption in Australia?
HAWKE: Let me say two things about that, Robert. You say
every time you open up the papers you get new information abcout
crime. It seems to me it is rather more accurate to say we get
a mixture of information and innuendo. Having said that, let
me say to you that I believe that organised crime in this
country is a problem a significant problem, particularly in
regard to that aspect of it dealing with drugs and it is because
I have that view that in my early meeting with Royal Commissioner
Costigan last year I indicated to him that in the time available
I wanted him to concentrate on the question of the Painters and
Dockers Union, but particularly on the question of drugs.
Now, I think that anyone in this country who under.-estimates the
dimension of this problem is stupid. It is a tragedy of very
very significant proportions.
JOURNALIST: It would appear that: the polls are showing thait
about 83% of Australians, Mr HawkE!, are now very concerned abzout
the problem of crime and corruption. Are those concerns
justified? Does that make it probably al: the moment the most
important political issue in this country?
HAWKE: No, no, there are two different things. It doesn't make
it the most important political issue. I am surprised that it
is only 83%. 1 would have hoped it was 1.00% who were concerned
about crime and corruption. I can't understand anyone not
being concerned of it, but it doesn't make it the biggest
political issue. The extent that our political opponenits w.. ant
to divert attention from economic matters, then we wil'
accommodate them because their record in this area is appalling.
After all, for the last 35 years in this country at the
Federal level government has been in the hands of the
conservatives. It is under their government that these things
have developed and it is only under my / 2 LD
Government that a significant and consistent attack is-being
mounted on all aspects of organised crime. So if they want
to talk about this we will welcome it. But it doesn't make
it the number one issue, nor does all the research show it.
We have undertaken our research, as we do consistently as a
Party, and no doubt the opposition have, and the research
doesn't show it as the major issue by any means. Still, in
political life, George, and I think you've been around long
enough that you'd'agree with me, that there is a tendency for
some of us intimately involved in politics whether it's on
the floor of the Houses of Parliament or in the galleries or
in programs such as this to talk about issues which have a
particular vibrance about them. But the realities remain for
the ordinary Australians for whom I'm concerned, what's
happening to the economy, what's hap-pening the prospect of
jobs, what increased chances do their children have of
getting jobs, what's happening to the rates of inflation,
what's happening to interest rates t~ hese things remain
fundamental as they should.
JOURNALIST: on this question of crime? and corruption, if
they are as endemic in our society as they appear to be, why
should we think that the Hawke Government or a Costigai Royal
Commission or a National Crime Authority can do anything to
stop it.
HAWK( E: Well if we as a community adopt that throw up our
hands in hopelessness attitude then there's probably nothing
that will be done. The important thing, and I think this is
where Commissioner Costigan has with Commissioner Stewart in
his Royal Commission work and others have been helpful, is in
highlighting a problem. But the thing that has to be done
now is with the problem highlighted, we have as a community
to adopt mechanisms and an appartus, George, which will
translate from making a community aware to having workable
apparatuses which will start to bring people concerned to
justice and that's where the National Crime Authority is so
important. And I think the whole community should be
indebted to Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Bingham and
HAWKE cont Mr Dwyer for what they've said this week,
that what they are about now is having received all the
material from Commissioner Costigan, some of which will be
able to be used, other parts of it which will not, that the
task of the National Crime Authority is now to get hard
admissable evidence so that these people who are engaged in
the abominations of organised crime in this country can be
brought to trial on the basis of admissable evidence and fair
trial.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, of the evidence against David
Combe you said that we had to look at the total mosaic.
HAWKE: Yes.
JOURNALIST: If you take the total mosaic in New South Wales
you see this two top police officers retired under a cloud,
a former Chief Magistrate facing trial, a former Prisons
Minister facing trial, a District Court Judge stood down
pending investigation all these matters concern the
administration of justice. Does that total mosaic concern
you? HAWKE: Well you are saying that about New South Wales,
Robert?
JOURNALIST: Yes.
HAWKE: Wherever that sort of thing occurs it concerns me and
what I want to say to you and I think that you know and
appreciate that wherever in regard to any of these matters,
and not all of them come into this category, but in regard to
any of those areas where Federal law or jurisdiction is
involved then this Gover jrnent in the period we have been in
office have moved immediately to refer such matters to the
appropriate authorities and have received their
recommendations for action and have moved accordingly. Now I
want to make it clear that I don't play favourites. I said
the other day in a press conference that wherever the cards
may fall, and you will recall that that observation was made
in respect of the Costigan Commission and the National Crime
Authority, but I make that statement broadly and without
exception where out of any inquiries, Robert, whether they be
out of say Costigan, the National Crime! Authority, Senate
Committees of Inquiry, out of any appropriate form of
investigation, whoever may be involved then that should be
pursued relentlessly and it will be.
JOURNALIST: Have you made that point clear to your N. S. W.
colleagues in the Federal Parliament and in the N. S. W.
Government.
4.
HAWKE: Yes, it's been made clear to everyone because my
position on these things has been crystal clear always. I
will be never involved in the position of protecting anyone
from the proper processes of the law where anyone should be
subject to those processes for the prosecution of criminal
activity. And it doesn't matter whether it's N. S. W.,
Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania wherever it: is whether I
know people or I don't know people there can be no room. And
that is not a proposition which allows itself a
qualification. There can be no room for protection of anyone
from the proper due processes of the law.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the point of the political impact
of this whole issue of crime, organised crime and corruption,
it's now regarded as a fact of life in N. S. W. that Neville
Wran's drop in popularity and approval has been due almost
entirely to that issue. If it keeps-rolling at the federal
level the way it is, could you see it affecting in a negative
way your own Government's standing and your standing for that
matter? HAWKE: No, because there is no suggestion, and as far as I'm
concerned there never will be able to be any suggestion,
about any improper activities on the part of this Government
or of anyone under its control. Wherever anything is raised
which requires investigation, and out of investigation
prosecution that will be done. And there has been no
suggestion to this point that this Government of mine would
follow anything other than that course. And it will not
happen while I'm Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST: In the NSW election campaign you stood 100%, if
it was possible 110%, behind Neville Wran. Do you have any
reservations about that now?
HAWKE: I have no reason whatsoever to qualify my support for
Neville Wran. I am not aware of one single piece of evidence
which questions the integrity of Neville Wran.. I am in no
possession of any such evidence. If I had any evidence then
of course I would not have adopted that position, nor would
Neville Wran have expected me to. But let me make this clear
and I have made it clear in the Parliament, I have mIWAQ it
clear throughout my public life I am not going to be a
party to assassination by innuendo or guilt by assocation. I
have never been part of that and I am not going to be. Now
that doesn't mean that if evidence emerges about anyone
whoever it may be, whatever my associations with them may be,
that they will receive any protection from me. But it is
terribly important, not merely in regard to Neville Wran, who
you mentione, but I suggest in regard to anyone that we have
in this country to avoid the processes of conde-: mnation and
guilt by smear and innuendo. What we mnIst have is the proper
processes of trial.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, we have come to quite a pass in
the smear and innuendo department with the person code-named
as the goanna in the press. Mr Kerry Packer has now come
forward and issued a statement in which he answers those
allegations., In this statement he says arid I have it here
" we face a situation where public figures be they in
' politics, the judiciary, the public service, or like myself
in the business community, are regularly being accused of
every imaginable crime without any evidence being proferred
for those allegat-ions." Do you accept that: as a reasonable
and fair summary of the situation and how can this particular
state of affairs concerning Mr Packer be resolved?
HAWKE: Well let me say this, and I think you have made it
clear, or will do that this is a Friday afte'Tnoon interview.
I haven't yet had the opportunity of seeing the statement
released by Mr Packer. But addressing myself to that
question I think yes, that it is a problem where people are
being found guilty by smear and innuendo. Let me just give
you two examples from the recent events of the Federal
Parliament which will give you some indication of how this
can be done. Mr Steel Hall was involved in both occasions
arid with the full connivance of Mr Peacock. Hie got up in the
Parliament and made an innuendo that I had attempted to
muzzle the Age newspaper that I had sent Mr Barron from my
personal staff to muzzle the Age newspaper arid stop a story.
Now that is a terrible thing to say, but it was put there on
the Parliament without any basis at all and fortunately it
didn't just depend upon my repudiation, but within a matter
of hours Mr Creighton Burns to his credit the editor of
the Age, completely demolished that. Now, there is a
situation in which with the editor the Age being the one
alleged to be involved irn this, he was able to demolish it.
Now that sort of thing is terrible. It was putting out
without any justification whatsoever a proposition that I was
trying to use my Prime Ministerial influence to stop the Age
publishing a story. Now it just wasn't done. Now the second
thing in which the two same people were involved in Mr
Steel Hall and Mr Peacock putting a smear into the
Parliament on Mr Keating, insinuating that he was prepared to
accept some terrible offer from Nugan Hand. Now that will be
dealt with and will be shown to be in 1: he same category. Now
may I just make this point and it is important: that I do so
at a little length, but I have nearly come to the end of this
part of my answer, Robert. I mean, I want to make the point
why is it that your opposition your Peacocks, your Steel
Halls and so on are engaging in this totally unfounded
sewer sort of politics which is baseless. it is becali'-
they know that under my government we have ia
from the economic disaster which we inhe,
seven years of adminstration, from a poir-WLvu-Le this economy
had stalled, where unemployment had risen by a quarter of a
million in the last year, where inflation was at 11 1/ 2 per
cent, where interest rates had risen to record high levels.
6.
We have reversed all that and then just in terms of the
economy in our first year we have produced Australia as the
highest rate of economic growth in the world. Now on these
things that matter to the Australian people, turning the
economy round to the highest growing in the world,
substituting a growth of unemployment of a quarter of a
million under them to an increase of a quarter of a million
new jobs under us, halving the inflation rate, bringing down
interest rates they can't bear to talk about these issues
which really concern the well-being of the Australian people,
so they get down into the sewer.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you are not suggesting though, are you
that over the years that the Labor Party hasspent in office
that it wasn't also guilty of the same kind of politics of
innuendo and insinuation that you are referring to now.
HAWKE: Let me say that there were some things that the
Labor Party did when in Opposition of which I didn't approve.
And I don't have to say that after thE event. I made it
clear at the timed, before I was in the Parliament and while
I was in there. I have never believed that you should find
someone guilty by association or that you should make charges
if you haven't got the evidence and certainly I believe that
when the processes of the law are underway in respect of
anyone then those processes should be left to go ahead
unimpeded. Of course in the past the Labor Party has not
been guiltless, but what I am saying is that that while I
am Prime Minister, I am not getting down in the sewer with
these people.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, no doubt with the best. motives, over
the last few days or a week or so, you and Mrs Hawke have
rightly or wrongly turned your own family affairs into a
political issue. Do you see that as being the case?
HAWKE: Well that is your assertion, that we have turned
our family into a political issue. Now I want to make it
clear, and very very clear, that what Hazel did earlier this
week was at the specific request of my daughter and my sonin-
law and there was a family agreement that they having
asked that that be done, for reasons that they found
compelling and for reasons that I admire them beyond measure,
that that would be it. Hazel would make the statement on
their behalf and that is the end of it.
JOURNALIST: Is it the case that even though it is a family
affair from your point of view, that the media are going to
continue discussing it, the opposition is going to continue
discussing it, and the electorate, no doubt, is discussing
it. So even though you saw it as a family mat~ ter, it has
become very public and political.
7.
HAWKE: It became a public issue when the family, at the
request of the children, for what as I say were
courageous reasons on their part, once Hazel made the public,
statement it follows as a matter of logic that that issues
became public. I mean that is a truism. But what I am
saying is that I can't stop, Hazel can't stop, and my
children can't stop now what speculation will be. But let
me say this, George that on the basis of reaction that
there has been, there has been an overwhelming respect amongst
the public that that is it. People don't want to talk any
further with me or with Hazel about it. I have had an
overwhelming response of respect. Now if you, and I don't say
this rudely to you, or others want to puirsue it, or attempt
to pursue it, that is your decision, George. But you will not
get any support from Hazel or myrself or my children.
JOURNALIST: What Hazel has done, Prime Minister, is to
acknowledge in a very brave way that your daughter and son-in-law
were for a lengthy period of time in breach of the law. As a
concerned parent you ' would have wanted to know two things.
How were they getting the money for this expensive habit and
where were the drugs coming from? Have you enquired as to that?
HAWKE: The situation in regard to the t~ ime of my knowledge
about the extent of this problem is something that has been
canvassed by Hazel. I am not going in to the private aspects of
this at all. If there is anyone within the law who wants to
speak to me or to Hazel or to the children, I would expect t. kicrn
to do that. Those are the proper processes. If those in
authority wish to ask questions which they regard as relevant,
that is what they should do. I will not break the compact with
my family about entering into rio further public discussion,
Robert. JOURNALIST: But is it a fact though, Mr Hawke, that if there
is information available to the law officers of this country
that could come from your family, that that should be offered
rather than asked for?
HAWKE: I don't know how many times I have to say this, Georg e.
I have found in previous interviews with you that you find
it difficult to accept an answer given straight and for proper
reasons. I say it again in the hope that you will understand
it. And that is this that if the relevant law authorities
wish to direct any questions to my children or to me, then I
hope they will. There will be no attempt to deflect that. It
would be the last thing. But I simply want to say this, that
as I understand the situation in this country where you have
institutions like Odyssey and other institutions which are
dealing compassionately and constructively with the victims
of this abomination of drugs, that what the society concentrates
on is trying to save the lives of those people. Now I believe
that that is what is important. But, and I repeat, if there
are any questions that noed to be asked, I hope they will be
asked. Now I say to you again, George, I object strongly if I
having made those things clear, abundantly and without
equivocation, you seek to pursue the matter because I will noct
say anything more than I have said and I have said it very clearly.
JOURNALIST: Can I ask you this and I understand if you don't
want to answer it. Do you think that getting to the roots of
the problems faced by you daughter and her husband in other
words the source of the drug involved that we would also be
getting close to the source and cause of the problems that so
many people
HAWKE: That is a matter, George. You do. test one's patience,
but I have to accept that you have difficulties. I repeat agai~ n
that if those whose responsibility it is within the law to
follow these matters, if they believe there would be help in this
matter by speaking to my children or to myself and my wife, the~ n
I hope they will do that. That is a matter for them. I am not.
going publicly in any way to pursue this matter further. Now I
hope, George, that you will understand that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, we will take a short break and we
will be back in a moment.
JOURNALIST: And with us is the Prime Minister. Prime Minister,
during your ACTU, your'political and Prime Ministerial careers
you've found that that put great stress on your family and on
yourself. If the price is that high, why do it?
HAWKE: It's a fair question Robert, and at times I've had to
address it and I hope you will understand the answer. It is
that I believe that I have been blessed with certain
cap~ acities, I don't want to list them. I think my public
record allows others to make a judgement about: those
capacities. And I deeply believe that I have been given
through life the opportunity to help my fellow Australians.
I deeply believe that as Prime Minister of this country I've
been given the opportunity to produce a better Australia in
co-operation with my fellow Australians, not just in the
Government, but in the business community and in the trade
unions and in organisations around this country. And I am
confirmed in that belief by the remarkable transformation
that's taken place in Australia in the period since March
1983. This is not only a country now which has reversed the
economic disaster that we inherited where we, as I say, have
the fastest growing economy in the world with a quarter of a
million more of our fellow Australians in new jobs and with
inflation halved, and so on. But it's not those things. The
important thing is that we've been able to get that economic
transformation because I have delivered the promise that I
made to the people of Australia in the election of February
and March. I said to them that I was going to end the
divisions in this country, to end the hatreds, to end the
confrontation where Australian was pitted against Australian,
where group was pitted against group. And it's on the basis
of that national reconciliation that we've been able to
achieve the economic transformation. Australia at the end of
1984 is a better country. There is a better sp irit in this
place. We are much closer to beginning to be able to take
the great advantages that we as Australians have of this
incomparably good country.
JOURNALIST: And yet the price is high, the personal price.
Is it too high?
HAWKE: Well at times I suppose you feel it might be, but never
do I have that feeling in any lasting sense. There are
obviously moments in your life, as there were in 1971, for
instance, Robert, when I led this country in its opposition to
the Springbok tour, perhaps ahead of public opinion. But I
give thanks that now that is a well accepted position. At that
time when my -children were made to suffer grievously in their
school because of their father's positioDn it certainly made
you wonder. In my early days in the ACTU presidency, and again
recently, I mean, you get a little bit depressed, but at the end
I feel that I have been given in life capacities which I am
morally bound to use and if in the use of those and the
development of those in high office there are times of unhap-Diness
for my family, I deeply regret that. No-one could more deeply
regret it, but I have the belief that I don't want to overstate
myself personally, but as leader of this country I do believe I
have the opportunity of making it a better Australia for millions
and millions of Australians and I believe it would be a
dereliction-of my opportunities. It would be a repudiation of my
capacities if for the sake of personal unhappiness at times
was to say alright, I am going to deny for purposes of my own
satisfaction or the satisfaction or happiness of my family, that
I was going to deny the opportunity of doing those things which
my whole belief through life, Robert, has been that you have a
responsibility to use your talents and to use them to make for
a happier and better life for others. That is what,-has
motivated me all my life and that is whiat I am going to continuc
to do.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, would you say, as you acknowledge that
you have put yourself and your family through a lot for those
* political objectives that you have. Would you say that the
last couple of weeks have been the roughest of your adult
life?
HAWKE: In some senses, yes, George, in some senses. But
let me say this and I know that Hazel and my kids would want
me to say this because they have always said it themselves
there have been the tough times, George, some very tough
ones as you have nominated. There have also been some great
times for us that wouldn't have arisen other than through my
involvement in public life. We have had an opportunity
all of us, myself, my wife, my children to grow in many
ways, to have experiences that we wouldn't otherwise have
been able to have. So we have in many ways as a family and
as individuals been enriched and enlarged. So it is not just
a one-sided balance sheet, George.
JOURNALIST: But you have in the past also, as I say,
denigrated yourself as a parent because of the other
responsibilities you have taken upon yourself.
HAWKE: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Do you in the ultimate analysis, for instance,
blame yourself for some of the predicaments that your family
has found themselves in, including the present one?
II~ ME: Of course I have an element of blame. Of course if I
had been a nine to five worker, had been able to spend mare
time, perhaps life would in some respects have been better
for my children. Of course I have, as an honest human being,
some sense of guilt. I mean I hope that in all of my life,
even if people haven't agreed with all I have done, they have
never questioned my honesty and sincerity of purpose and I
must honestly say that of course I have! some sense of guilt,
but I also want to enter the observation, if I may, and my
family have been good enough themselves even at some of the
darker moment, if I can put it that way, have been honest
enough to say well, Dad, there have been a lot of good
things too.
11.
JOURNALIST: They would have seen the emotional side of Bob
Hiawke probably more often than the rest of us. The question
of this fine line between the person expressing their
emotions as openly as you do and emotional : instability has
been raised recently again. What do you see the fine line as
being between an emotional person and an emotionally unstable
person?
HAWKE: Well I don't think it exists in my case. I have
always thought, right from the time I have been in public
life, of issues not in dessicated terms where you are making
a decision about taxes or if you are making a decision about
a resolution of an industrial dispute that there it is just
to be looked at as a set of numbers or figures. I have
always at the end thought of it as dealing with people, as
with human beings, and so I tend in my vision of an issue to
see people there and that means perh-as on some occasions and
some aspects that the feelings I have come through. I have
expressed the fact that I would like -it would be more
comfortable for me, George, if I were physiologically
manufactured in a way which meant that perhaps at time there
wasn't so obvious emotion. that I feel, but I have also
continuously through my life had the view that one of the
greatest wastes that a person can engage in is to try and
change something that is not capable of chang e. It is much
better to concentrate your time and your talents, George, on
trying to change those things in this world t~ hat you may be
able to change for the better and go about doing it.
JOURNALIST: What, you don't see your emotionalism as being
a politically disadvantage?
HAWKE: Well look, let me put it this way. Since I have
bcen President of the ACTU, but let's put that behind us
since I have been Prime Minister of this country, since March
of ' 83, day after day I have been faced with having to make
hard decisions, some of which I would rather have not to have
to take, but I have never flinched from taking those
decisions and may I say, and I believe that the overwhelming
majority of your viewers, whether they happen to have voted
for me or not in the past, would recognise that in the period
since 5 March 1983-that if you try and make the judgement,
George, about looking at Australia now at the end of ' 84 and
asking is it a better country since the change of government
not merely in economic terms but in the spircit that is
abroad in this country. I think they would say yes, it is r
much better country. Now that hasn't happened by accident.
Obviously there are a lot of things which have happened since
then for which we don't claim credit the breaking of the
drought and so on, but the fundamentals of economic policy
which have transformed this country, which have placed the
concept of consensus and co-operation and consultation at the
forefront of government, rather than confrontation I have
been involved in those. They have been my ideas. I have
12.
brought them to fruition. I have made them work and in the
process there and in the process of our international
relationships day after day I have to make hard decisions.
There are pressure groups that you cannot satisfy and who get
upset. I don't flinch from hard decisions. I never have and
I never will.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one decision that you will have
to take fairly soon is the election date. When will you
announce it and will the Parliament sit the full two weeks
coming up as scheduled?
HAWKE: I would expect they would, Robert. I adhere to what
I said some time before that I will announce the election
date earlier than any of my predecessors haVe done. I am not
going to play around up to the last minute like my
predecessors. And there are very gaod reasons for that.
People in the business community who have urged me to go to
a-n election and to go early have made the point that it can
be de-stabilising for the business community if this issue is
played around with up to the last moment. It won't be.
People in Australia will ' have more notice from me than they
have had from my predecessors. And most importantly, Robert,
as I think you appreciate, we will be having a situation
where as a result of the decision I take we will be having
one less election than we otherwise would have to do.
JOURNALIST: You are a betting man, Prime Minister. Can I
get a bet on fro December 1?
HAWKE: Not with me. I'm not a bookmaker, but that is a
very cunning way of trying to get a scoop, for Sunday.
JOURNALIST: You can't blame us.
HAWKE: I can't. I don't blame you Robert. I think, as you
know, I have a profound admiration for this program, but as
profound as it is, I'm not going to give you that scoop.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, thanks very much for joining us.
HAWKE: Thank you'. Thank you very much.