ALM4
PRIME MINISTER
E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
INTERVIEW WITH JANA WENDT FOR 60 MINUTES
14 OCTOBER 1984
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, right now you are very clearly the ALP's biggest electoral asset. There-was a time when Neville Wran shared that distinction. These days it. seems that Neville Wran has turned into an electoral liability. Are you happy to fight an election shoulder to shoulder with Neville Wran?
PM: I have made clear right throughout this year that I stand by Neville Wran and whether it is Neville Wran or anyone else, my stance in public life has been crystal clear. If I have friends and colleagues I never walk away from them on the basis that there are smears and allegations unsubstantiated against them. My friends and colleagues have had my unquestioned loyalty unless and until there is some substantiated and proven
issue of impropriety or misbehaviour. Now that is not the case with Neville Wran.
JOURNALIST: Do you support him 110%.
PM: Of course I do. Loyalty and friendship doesn't mean anytoing
if when a person is under attack and those allegations aren't.
substantiated you walk away and distance yourself because some~
of the mud has stuck. -Let proper processes V
be undertaken and I said let the cards fall where they may.
It won't matter whether a person who is a close friend or 4
colleague-of mine, whatever status or station in life, if they
are proved guilty of impropriety then so be it. They will
receive no protection from me, but until that has been done, they
will not lose my loyalty.
JOURNALIST: Is that blind loyalty or political pragmatism,?
PM: It is human decency. Once a society allows itself to ( jet
to the stage of McCarthyism taking over where a person is going
to have to prove their innocence where you have to walk away from
people because allegations are made agains them, then this society
will be significantly diminished. And I am not going to have any
part of assisting that process? ./ 2
JOURNALIST: You acknowledged a moment there was mud flying
albeit in your eyes unjustified in the direction of Mr Wran.-ts
there just a possibility that some of that mud might fly past
Mr Wran to you?
PM: There's; no evidence ofityou see, you political coimmentators
not intentionally of course, but I think you don't have
sufficient regard for the intelligence and perspicacity
of the electorate. The electorate had the opportunity of
judging me over many years and my integrity and they know
that there is no question about my integrity. They know that
I am an honest man. i
JOURNALIST: Mr Wran made some comm~ ents ab~ out Mr Briese and
his evidence given before the SEnate, now two of your i
Senators said that it was better if Mr Wran had not made
those comments, to put it bluntly, if he'd shut up about
it. Now did you support those Senators at. the time?
PM: Now it wasn't a question of me supporting them. People
in the the political process, tend to make comments on
the statements that others make.
JOURNALIST: Do you agree with them?
PM: I take the view that perhaps it would have been wiser
if Mr Wran hadn't said what he said.
JOURNALIST: I guess it boils down to the fact where people
ask themselves why should a rising star like Bob Hawke..
PM: I am still rising am I?
JOURNALIST: Perhaps you are there, perhaps you have risen.
Why should a risen star like Bob Hawke be seen shoulder to
shoulder with a fading star like Neville Wran?
PM: Well, you may say they are grasping that but agi make the point
that the Australian electorate, the ordinary people out there
in viewing land, are much more intelligent than you give them
credit for. They happen to know the simple fact that Neville
Wran is the National President of my Party. I am the Prime
Minister of this country and the Leader of that Party and they
understand that we have stood together, and they understand my
nature. And I have explained that in earlier questions. I do
^, not walk away from friends and colleagues because they have been
subject to McCarthyist smears and innuendoes.'
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, only a few days after the announcement
of the election date, your Government apologised for comments
that your deputy made about the Senate Enquiry into the
conduct of Justice Lionel Murhphy. Did you carpet__ Bowen for that?
PM: I don't think carpet is the right word. I did have
discussions with Lionel and he shared my view that the
interpretation could be there casting doubts upon the members
of the Committee and he very willingly with my concurrence
issued a statement that night. And I belive that is honourable
and indeed the House the next day when he made that clear without
question accepted it.
JOURNALIST: It led however several editorial writers to say
that, for instance, Mr Bowen' s comments had led your government
into a deep political hole. Now were they wrong?
PM: Of course they were wrong. Where is the hole. I mean, the
issue was dead within 24 hours some hole.
JOURNALIST: In the 1980 election Malcolm Fraser successfully
exploited the tax issue and Messrs Peacoc~ k and Howard look as
though they are going to try and do the same thing. Do you
believe that your government is vulnerable in that area?
PM: On the contrary. I hope they try arid make a political
issue because it's a winner for us and a loser for them.
JOURNALIST: The Liberal Party'Is strength appears to be to
use fear tactics about capital gains tax, wealth tax or death
duties. Can you put an end to that type of story?
PM: I have already. I have said quite clearly that it is
agreed across the political spectrum that there must be a form
of -the tax system.
JOURNALIST: Surely, though, one way to put an end to the
scare-mongering of the Liberal Party is to say, well, there
will be no capital gains tax In the next term of my Government.
There will be no death duties.
PM: No, what the Australian people expect is not that
governments or Oppositions try and play this for short term
Political gain which is what you are s-uggesting to me.
JOURNALIST: Wouldn't they like a guarantee that there will be
no such thing?
PM: No, what the people want is a guarantee that this
government will continue to make economic decisions on the
same basis as we have up until this point. That is % 4hat they want.
That is what they wmtll get.
JOURNALIST: You don't think there would be a unanimous sigh
of relief if you said to me now there would be no capital
gains tax in my next term of office.
PM: I don't know whether there would be a unanimous sigh of
relief. I think that the people would not like me abandoning
the process which has turned this economy around from stagnancy
to now being the highest, fastest growing economy in the world. 4
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, your family chose to open up a ve~ ry
personal....... talking about the problems of your daughter and
son-in-law. Politics aside, what affect did that have on
Rosslyn and Matthew's physical rehabilitation.
PM: I'm not going to speak on that in this respect
there was a contract. I have made it clear that there was a
contract of their initiation. They wanted said what was said
by Hazel. And that is it.
JOURNALIST: Would you say as a whole that your family
is strong as a result of Mrs Hawke having made that statement?
PM: Yes I do.
JOURNALIST:-I n the case of Commissioner Frank Costigan,
the Costigan family had no choice, in the case of their son.
His problems were boradcast on Melbourne radio.
PM: They certainly had no choice after what was done.
JOURNALIST: Commissioner Costigan expressed a concern about his
son after that case was made public. Do you share that concern?
Do you understand his concern?
PM:
JOURNALIST: would you think that his son was ftir game for the
media?
PM: No I didn't.
JOURNALIST: Mr Costigan and his Commission were publicly
condemned recently and you and your Ministers did not appear
exactly to leap to Commisssioner Costigan's defence. Why not?
PM: Because Mr Costigan himself would not have thought it
appropriate that we as a government entered into that public
debate. JOURNALIST: You don't think that was a case of smear and
innuendo in to Mr Costigan?
PM: The person concerned entered a rejcoinder, not unprompted,
as it were, by an intervening event. It was not the work of
Mr Costigan. It was the publication of some of that material.
in the National Times and don't let's be elyptical about * it.
We are talking about Mr Packer. Mr Packer made a decision to
make a statement. Now, that was his decision.
JOURNALIST: Mr Packer made a statement that was severe
condemnation of Commissioner Costigan.
PM: Yes, and what I am saying. It was not appropriate for
us to enter into that issue. I have over the last few years,
since Mr Costigan Has been going, been very explicit in my
praise of the work of Mr Commissioner Costigan in the area of
the tax avoidance industry. Now when an issue like
this arises it is clearly not the appropriate, nor would
Commissioner Costigan I believe expect me or the government to
intervene in that issue. I assume that Mr Costigan in his
final report will address himself to some of these issues and it
is appropriate would be quite improper for
government to intervene in that way.
JOURNALIST: On a personal level Mr Packer's statement ad
it surprise you that it was made?
PM: I think it surprised many people. It was a very difficult
decision for him. It's not confined to Mr Packer for anyone
in that situation a difficult decision.
JOURNALIST: But it does literally put the Costigan
Commission and Mr Packer at public odds, doesn't it?
PM: It certainly does, yes.
JOURNALIST: You have refused to appear on this program in
a debate with Mr Peacock and you have even appeared to be
coy about a public debate with him. Isn't he good enough
to debate with?
PM: I debate with him frequently in the Parliament. And
the runs are on the board, if I can put it there. Everyone knows what
the score is in those debates. So it is a nonsense to suggest that
I'm worried about debating with Mr Peacock. I have simply
said that given the way in which I think he has demeaned the
position by the sort of tactics he adopted we just have to address
our minds to whether we in the course of the campaign have
a debate, or something equivalent to a debate.
We will address our minds to that at the appropriate time.
JOURNLAIST: When will that be?
PM: The appropriate time may be next week or the week after. it
is one of the things we are thinking about.
JOURNALIST: For you, there will obviously be alot Of Political
satisfaction if the polls are right and your party does romp
in. Will there be any personal satisfaction in defeating
and possibly destroying Andrew Peacock?
PM: I don't get any personal satisfaction out of seeing an
individual hurt. I mean I play the political game tough
in the sense of issues. And if I think a person is wrong
and doing something improper I will attack that hard. But once
I have won, Jana, I don't like seeing people being ground into
the dust. Let me say this, I hope and expect to win the
election and win it well and that will mean, in that sense,
a victory for me, and a defeat for Mr Peacock. But I hope
the opportunity will be there for Mr Peacock to have some
satisfaction in public life in one way or another.
ENDS.