6
PRIME MINISTER
E. O. E. -PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE -19 FEBRUARY 1985
PM: Ladies and gentlemen I've just come from the Caucus where I
made a lengthy report to the Caucus on a range of matters
including, of course, recent events around the MX decision and my
visit to the United States. I'm pleased to say that the Caucus
without dissent endorsed the decision that was made by thd Federal
Cabinet on this matter. I read the decision of the Cabinet which
was, as I say, unanimously endorsed by the Caucus. It was in
these terms-
" Federal Cabinet today reaffirmed Australian Government
policy on the basic issues of the Australia/ U. S. Alliance,
ANZUS Treaty and on disarmament and deterrence.'
Cabinet took these decisions today after it recevied and
endorsed a report on my recent overseas visit.
As a result of the discussions, and bearing in mind our close
relations with both the U. S. and New Zealand, Cabinet will
shortly consider a paper on the practical measures with
regard to the U. S. and New Zealand for giving effect to the
ANZUS Alliance following the recent New Zealand action to ban
U. S. ship visits, and another paper elaborating on the
relation between and the implementation of the Government's
policies on disarmament and support for deterrence.
The first paper will be prepared by the Foreign minister, the
Hon. Bill Hayden, and the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Kim
Beazley, and the second paper will be prepared by Mr Hayden.
The Ca binet discussion was lengthy, amicable and conducted in
an atmosphere of genuine desire to ensure continuing unity
and cohesion both at the Governmet and Party level over these
complex and sensitive issues.
There was also general agreement that both the Australia/ U. S.
Alliance and the need to do all in our power to ensure the
maximum possible progress on disarmament were essential to
Australian foreign policy.
All Ministers addressed the issue without rancour and with a
desire to search for the best method of both implementation
and understanding of these policies.
An important theme of the discussion was the need to ensure
that the decision making processes of the Government were
directed most effectively to these ends."
Now that was the decision of Cabinet. On 12 February it was
unanimously endorsed by the Cabinet and that has in turn been
endorsed without dissent by the Caucus. Let me comment on that
before going to a second resolution which was passed by the
Caucus. In speaking to this motion, as I had in my report, I made
it clear that the papers that were being prepared did not go to
the question of the policies. The first was a working, practical
paper to look at the questions of how now in fact the relationship
between the United States and Australia, under ANZUS, would be
conducted and how the relationship between Australia and New
Zealand would be conducted. While the second paper, as t1~ e
Cabinet decision indicated, is one elaborating on the relation
between and the implementation of the Government's policies on
disarmament and support for deterrence.
The second decision which was, as I say, passed by the Caucus was
in these terms
" Caucus renews its commitment to the goal of ensuring a long
term reforming Labor Government.
Towards this end, Caucus calls on all members, including
Ministers, to participate actively in the Caucus decisionmaking
process to ensure that the Government achieves the
Party's objectives in the most effective possibl~ e way.
Recognising the importance of the unity of the Government and
of the Party, Caucus calls upon all members to promote the
decisions of the Government, and so to ensure a unified and
effective presentation of Government policies.
Caucus further notes that there are long-standing processes
available within the Party for the resolution of differences
of opinion, and that it is in the best interests of the Party
and the Government when debates are properly cofined to the
processes of the Party."
May I say, ladies and gentlemen, that the comment that I made
and it was endorsed by the Cabinet as to the nature and
character of the discussion in the Cabinet of this matter was also
reflected in the discussions in the Caucus. They were useful,
constructive and harmonious and reflected the desire of the Caucus
as of the Cabinet to ensur-e that the purposes of the Government
are effective in the most constructive manner. And I believe that
we have the basis of going into the Parliament now on a firm
united basis, with the recognition that the events of the week
before last had not been entirely helpful to the Government. And
that is now reflected in, I believe, the unanimous view of the
Caucus that we have the opportunity now in the Parliament and
outside the Parliament of developing and presenting to the people
of Australia the positive policies which are going to be to the
immediate and the long-term benefit of this country.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, who moved and seconded the two
resolutions? PM: I moved the resolution, the first one, which was an
endorsement of the Cabinet resolution. I think it was seconded by
Mr Bilney I can't recall. And the second resolution was moved
by Mr Ron Edwards and seconded by Mr John Scott.
JOURNALIST: What practical steps apart from the doubling in the
number of Caucus Committees are being taken to improve the
consultation and the decision-making process.
PM: As I left the Caucus Mr Keating was reporting on behalf of
the Kirribilli Committee. That discussion is still going on and
as I understand there will be further discussions and then
decisions at the next meeting of Caucus.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke were you asked to amplify the background to
your decision on the MX?
PM: I wasn't asked to. I did it without being asked.
JOURNALIST: Were you then asked whether or not you thought it was
the right decision.
PM: No I was not.
JOURNALIST: Did you suggest to the factional leaders, when you
met them this morning for breakfast, that they should stop holding
press conferences?
PM: Well, obviously the whole question of public statements by
individuals and groups was mentioned. And that was included in
the discussion. And I think you will see that the intent of the
second resolution that was passed by the Caucus would cover that
situation.
JOURNALIST: Have the Left agreed not to hold press conferences?
PM: Oh well, I am the Prime Minister and I'm speaking now on
behalf of the Caucus. I don't presume to be the spokesman for the
Left particularly. I think you should direct that question to
them. But I would believe that that practice wouldn't continue.
JOURNALIST: Is that just a matter of press conferences or would
you exepct the factional leaders who are outside the Ministry not
to make any public comment on matters of Government policy before
the decision by Cabinet?
PM: I believe that in terms of the resolution and the spirit of
it that in future the discussions will be within the Party
processes. JOURNALIST: Did you make your own views on this clear to the
factional leaders this morning and did they agree to that.
PM: Yes. I made my position clear. But let me make it clear
that it wasn't a question of the Prime Minister having to impose a
view. I think there was a general recognition amongst all groups
that, as I've said earlier, that the events of the week before
last were not helpful to the Party and to the Government. And I
think there's a determination as reflected in the resolution to
pursue a different course.
JOURNALIST: Yes but you didn't seek, nor did they give, a
guarantee that they wouldn't speak out.
PM: Well I didn't feel it necessary to seek a guarantee because I
felt from discussions that had taken place that there was an
understanding that we needed to handle these things differently.
That understanding was clear and I believe was explicitly
reflected in the resolution passed by Caucus.
JOURNALIST: pre-empting Party policy by, for example,
speaking out on taxation matters before the Party's has decided on
a formal policy?
PM: As Prime Minister I have the right and the obligation to
speak to the public on issues concerning the areas of Government
initiatives. I don't pre-empt the decisions of the Government that
will be taken in the area of tax. I expressed a clear view and
made it clear in the discussion today, in my report which covered
more than MX and the United States visit, that the Party will be
fully involved in the processes of preparation of the White Paper
which will be issued we hope in May or June before the Summit in
the first week of July, there will be full involvement of the
Party in those processes.
JOURNALIST: Well what about other people on taxation. Is that
included in this resolution or do you think it's fair enough that
people put a view on an issue like that which is not yet resolved?
PM: Well I think in the spirit of the resolution that was passed,
Michelle, that the way in which members of the Party will pursue
that will now tend to be within the actual processes of the Party.
Because what you've got to appreciate ' is that the Treasurer,
Mr Keating, will be discussing these matters with the Caucus
Committee and so there'll be full opportunity within the processes
of the Party for different points of view to be put.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke do you think, the first of a series of
trying to heal the rift between the factions?
PM: Well you say a rift between the factions I don't put it
that way. What this morning was about was to address a situation
that had arisen, where as I said, the Government had not been
helped by the events of the previous week. And we were all of the
mind that that was the case and it seemed to me sensible to bring
the representatives of the groups together. They all positively
responded. I think we all found it a very useful exercise.
Whether that will be a regular feature no decision has been
made. But certainly it was very useful and it may well be that
something of that kind more frequently could be useful.
JOURNALIST: Whose idea was it..
PM: It was mine.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister was there any criticism of you for
formally attending a meeting of a faction before Christmas\ and are
you the first Prime Minister, Labor Prime Minister, to attend a
formal faction meeting.
PM: No there wasn't and secondly, I don't know.
JOURNALIST: Now that harmony has been restored, Prime Minister,
in the ANZUS/ MX affair is the Government in a position to re-open
the offer to restore to the Americans the facilities to refuel
their aircraft when..
PM: You don't seem to realise, David, that there was a mutual
decision between myself and the Americans that that was no longer
required.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke what explanation did you give to Caucus
about how you arrived at the original M4X decision.
PM: I explained that the matter was brought to my attention in
May of 1983, before I went to the United States. And it was
pointed out to me then, by the then Minister for Defence, that
this situation may arise in my discussions over there and that I
had raised the question without making a decision at that point of
the splash-down point that was proposed, and indicated that no
splash-down point within any definition of Australian territorial
waters would be acceptable if we were going to consider such a
decision. Then, later in 1983, the question was raised with us
were we going to provide the facilities and that a decision was
taken by the three Ministers in good faith and in full integrity
on 16 November 1983.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke when you were in Washington you were assured
that Australia would not be involved in any research under the SDI
program. I wonder whether you can assure us whether Australia, or
whether you've received any guarantees that Australia will also
not be involved in any subsequent testing, deployment or use of
the strategic defence arrangements.
PM: Well let me say two things in regard to that. Firstly, I
made it clear both in my discussions with the President, the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense that we could not
support the SDI initiative. And secondly, I received assurance
that the facilities, the joint facilities in Australia, were not
and would not be involved in such research.
JOURNALIST: How can you prevent the joint facilities being
involved in the testing and deployment of missiles under the SDI
though?
PM: Well, following our accession to government in 1983 there
was a review of the whole question of the facilities and the ANZUS
relationship. We are in a position where we are involved in and
know of the operations of the facilities. We have specifically
put the question to the United States. They have given us an
unequivocal answer and, as distinct from some people, I aiA not in
the business of questioning the integrity of the United States.
JOURNALIST: Could I take your answer to mean, research
rather than anything further so that if the Americans deploy or
even test..
PM: I specifically put to Mr Weinberger, and I thank you Mike for
your question because it makes clear what did emerge, that firstly
I received the assurance that facilities were in no way involved.
And further than that, I indicated that should there be any
developments on the part of the United States which, on their part
would contemplate the use of the facilities, then we would be
required to be informed because it is not our position that we
would be involved in the SDI.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did the faction leaders at this
morning's meeting seek any undertaking from you in return for
their undertaking to to make any public comments?
PM: No, there was no seeking of undertakings from me. We all
recognise that there should be a use of the Party processes for
expressing views, and for my part, as I have said previously, I
welcome any moves that are going to facilitate the processes of
consultation on the part of Ministers with the Caucus and through
the Committee system. I have made that quite clear that I welcome
that so the question simply didn't arise. I made that clear.
They understood that. It was a shared view.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could I just whisk you away from
Caucus for one minute? Do you intend any further meetings with
the NSW doctors?
PM: I will be actually having a meeting this evening with Mr
Shepherd and Dr Blewett will be involved in that meeting and I
hope that that may lead to some avenues for resolving the dispute.
Let me make it clear, as we have in previous discussions, where
the procedural specialists and the AMA were involved, that my
Government will not brook any changes in the basic structures of
Medicare we are not about that. But we are concerned with the
great damage that is developing as far as innocent patients in NSW
are concerned. And if we can, by meeting with Mr Shepherd, move
towards or start to move towards a resolution of this dispute,
then that is a good thing, but it should be made clear that we
have responded to all the points that have been raised in our
earlier discussions. We believe there is there a basis for a
resolution of this dispute and I hope that as a result of these
discussions we may be able to move more quickly towards resolving
a dispute which is doing no credit to those immediately involved,
but more importantly is starting to assume quite tragic
proportions for innocent people in NSW.
JOURNALIST: What changes do you intend to make to your own
decision making process to prevent a repetion of the original MX
decision?
PM: well it is not a question of changing decision making
processes. I have indicated in a previous answer here this
afternoon how the decision was arrived at this particular
decision was arrived at in good faith and in discussions with
the Ministers concerned. Let me make it clear that no-one is
suggesting no-one has suggested in any discussion with me that
security matters are ones which can be a matter for Cauc us
discussion and decision. No-one has put that. And I believe that
the record shows in regard to general matters that, as far as I
have been concerned, I discuss matters with Ministers widely.
This is not an authoritarian government and certainly, however, we
should all, all of us, all intelligent people, should learn from
the difficulties of the previous week. The difficulties arose
from reactions to a particular decision and so we have all
sensibly got to make sure that as much consultation as possible
takes place. On some issues there will be clearly a limited
amount of consultation that will take place, but there should be
as much as it is possible in regard to the issue with which you
are dealing. I certainly have always, both before and since I
have become Prime Minister, believed that the most effective
decisions come from involving as many people as you can and that
has been the hallmark for this Government. I will continue along
those lines.
JOURNALIST: blame the issue blowing up as it did?
PM: I know that a lot of you have been almost exclusively
involved in the question of blame allocation and that is probably
an interesting exercise. I regard it as rather futile but I have
never believed in regard to this issue or any other that I am
perfect. I think I have made that quite clear. And I am an
intelligent person who can learn from experience. Now in regard
to this issue three Ministers in good faith and with integrity
made a decision. Our integrity and good faith was not questioned
at all. It hasn't been questioned at all. Now, once, and I think
this ought to be made clear once it became clear that there was
a very broad concern about that decision, then I, I believe with
complete responsibility, responded to that position. In other
words, as I made clear in Washington, as I make clear again here
in this press conference, I believe the two fundamental positions
appeared to be in jeopardy if that position was adhered to. The
first was that the continuing fundamentals of the Australia/ United
States alliance relationship, the joint facilities/ bases, ship
visits that those continuing, fundamental, important elements of
our relationship were being put in possible jeopardy by a
continuing adherance to a previous decision in regard to a matter
which was transient was not part of the permanent, fundamental,
important issues. And secondly, I believed that there could be
some impairment of our capacity to proceed assiduously as we had
done since we have been in government in the various areas of
disarmament. And I wasn't going to allow either of those two
fundamentals to be impaired or diminished. Now, if you want to
say would I change that decision making process, I wouldn'$. I
would always try and make the decision and be involved in
decisions which are going to enable the fundamentally important
issues of government to be pursued. It did not to me make-any
sense to adhere to a position which was going to impair those
fundamentals.
JOURNALIST: If you say that security matters are not a matter
for Caucus deliberation, how then do you get around another MX
problem, I mean, given that you can't tell the Caucus about this
decision, how do you get around the..
PM: Let me repeat. No-one has put to me that those sorts of
issues and decisions are for Caucus deliberations. No-one has put
that. Now they will be handled by consideration within the
appropriate committees which are established for that purpose.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you agree that the National and
International Security Committee of Cabinet should report back to
Cabinet on its decisions?
PM: You are a bit out of date. It is no longer called that.
JOURNALIST: Sorry, the security committee.
PM: Alright.
JOURNALIST: As contained in the Party platform that it should
report decisions back to Cabinet. Do you agree with that?
PM: Well, the position that we will adopt I think will be a
flexible one that there is an attitude, I believe now, in the
Party that we have to ensure that where the fullest range of
consultations is possible, that that will be done and we will seek
to do that. Now, these matters have been discussed and I think
satisfactorily resolved within the Cabinet. There was an
acceptance within the Cabinet discussion on 12 February that you
have different categories of situations. Quite clearly I and the
Ministers directly concerned in this area which is the Minister
for Defence and Foreign Affairs will seek to involve as many
people as we possibly can in the w-idest range of issues that we
have a responsibility for dealing with.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you say the first resolution was
passed without dissent. To what extent was there any criticism of
you or of the decision in the first place in the Caucus debate?
PM: What was the last part of your question?
JOURNALIST: To what extent was there any criticism of your
decision in the course of the debate.
PM: As I recall, none.
JOURNALIST: None at all?
PM: None means none at all.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the question of wider consultation..
PM: Let me make it clear, that doesn't mean that in the minds of
some people there might not have been criticism. I mean, some has
been expressed before. I was referring to the meeting.
JOURNALIST: On Caucus consultation, do you accept the structure
put forward in the Dawkins paper?
PM: I am not going to, now, break the unanimous decision of
Caucus. What a question. I will be involved in the discussion in
the processes of the Party. There are Party processes for dealing
with these things, not at a press conference.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you aware that Mr Lange is
planning to visit Australia in April?
PM: No, I wasn't.
JOURNALIST: Will you be seeing him when he comes here in April?
PM: Are you joking, Laurie? Of course I will. I hope I can
have a game of tennis with him. I don't think he would be as
quick around the court as I would, but he might be.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, have the Americans actually asked
Australia to help support the SDI development or is it just an
anticipating ( inaudible)
PM: No, they have not asked. I am not anticipating one. I
believe that I have an obligation to make my position clear on it.
I did. And as I have said before, I think probably I have made
the position of my government clearer and in less equivocal terms
probably than any other western leader.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke do you think the Americans would have any
grounds for concern about the Pacific allies of the alliance and
what's happened recently, particulary in reference to the private
member's bill that was introduced by Senator Chaney yesterday.
PM: Well I think the answer to that question is perhaps best, as
far as Australia is concerned, answered by the statements of
myself and President Reagan on 7 February. I said, and hie agreed
with my statement, I quote what I said
" The relationship that is between Australia and the United
States under the ANZUS treaty and the rights and obl~ gations
assumed under the treaty were undiminished by recent events."
And President Reagan said, at the same time he said, I quote him
" Australia is a reliable'ally, an important trading partner,
a trusted frienid in a fellow democracy."
And he observed, I quote, that he-
" could not overstate the value that the United States placed
on its friendship with Australia."
Now however much some people in Australia in the Opposition
parties may seek to do a great disservice to the basic interests
of this country by seeking themselves to undermine the
relationship and the strength of the relationship, they will not
succeed. Does anyone in this country who is trying to undermine
the relationship between Australia and the United States, members
of the Opposition who put in question whether recent events
diminished that relationship, the President of the United States
agrees that the relationship remains undiminished. Now if the
President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Australia
have that view and have that position as they do have, then it is
an act grossly and manifestly against the interests of Australia
and of the relationship for anyone in the Opposition to put a
contrary view.
JOURNALIST: Do you think the recent experiences have been a
salutory experience for you?
PM: Salutory experience for whom?
JOURNALIST: For you and for the Australian Government?
PM: I think that all experience you should learn from, but let
me say this and of course I am never one to criticise the media
you know that but let me say this. I think it may have been a
more objective assessment of the visit to the United States if
there had been a full exposition an objective exposition of what
in fact was achieved there that is that we dealt with what was a
delicate issue. We arrived at a mutually agreed position and one
which the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of
Australia agrees involves no diminution in the strength and the
force of the relationship between us. And that in that process,
as Prime Minister of this country, and as an aligned country of
the United States, I however strongly put the position that we are
not an aligned country which had to agree, or did agree with every
single aspect of the policy-making and decisions arrived at.
and I have indicated where that was the case. Now that is the
strength of the relationship that is the strength of the
relationship between two great sovereign, but allied democracies
that is that you share certain basic perceptions. They are
fundamental to our perception of how this country should operate.
They are fundamental to the perception of how the United States
should operate. We are committed to the same fundamental values
and in recognition of those shared perceptions we have an alliance
relationship which involves certain fundamental rights and very
fundamental obligations on our part. s Those rights and
obligations remain undiminished and it is within such a healthy
strong relationship between two countries committed to democratic
principles that you are able to have differences of opinion. And
in the expression of those differences of opinion you not militate
against the alliance. They are a reflection of its basic
strength. JOURNALIST: You said there was a deliberate mis-reporting
aspects of that.. Do you think there is a growing press bias
against you and your Government?
PM: No, I don't have a feeling against press bias. I simply say
in respect of this visit that I believe there was a mis reporting
there and when I returned. I mean, you are pursuing this
question, not me. I am relaxed about you people. I think you are
lovely. I think you are beautiful, but I don't think you always
get it right and so, if you want me to give you an example, let me
give it. One would have thought that by the time I got back here
and there were the avenues you have available of finding out what
happened, that you would be surprised by having a front page story
in one of your papers that at the security committee meeting on 29
January Mr Hawke did not raise the question. It was raised under
the lines by Mr Beazley. That is absolutely wrong. It was
raisedf by me. Now, I don't know why you get something as simple
as that wrong. There must be a reason.
JOURNALIST: You said it was deliberate, though. Inaudible.
PM: Look, you are raising the question of bias. I haven't
raised it. I didn't use the word bias. I am not using it. I am
not here to complain about the press. I am not complaining about
it.
JOURNALIST: But you talk about mis-reporting. Is it deliberate
mis-reporting?
PM: Oh well, who am I to be here and enter into the minds of such
a range of people as this. I mean, I don't know why things are
got wrong. I mean, I just find it very difficult to understand on
a simple thing like that about a security meeting where there is a
deliberate assertion that Mr Hawke did not raise it. It was
raised under the line by Mr Beazley. Now, it is wrong. It
couldn't be more wrong.
JOURNALIST: Deliberately wrong?
PM: Well, let me say this. There is a way of finding out before
going into print as to whether it was right or not and the
processes weren't followed.
JOURNALIST: ( Inaudible) It's pretty hard.
PM: Oh so you justify false assertions in that way. I don't
think that is correct.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible.
PM: But listen, let me make it clear, I mean, you have gone down
this path. I want to make it clear that I am not complaining
about the coverage.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, how much damage do you think has been to
the Government electorally because of all the reporting over the
past few weeks?
PM: Let me make it clear, it is not the reporting. I mean, I am
not trying to say..
JOURNALIST: The headlines
PM: Sure, about what has in fact happened. I mean, let me make
it quite clear, I am not blaming anyone else outside the Party for
what has happened within the Party. I think the Party will have
suffered how much I don't know. But what I assert that it is
very temporary because the position of the Government is, I
believe strong with regard to the basics that concern the people
of this country. That is the matter of sound economic management.
And there would, however, I believe, have been some reaction to
the public squabbling that took place. There would have been some
adverse reaction. I believe that will prove to have been
temporary.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, when you have discussed this issue with the
Party and also with the Cabinet, at any stage have you accepted
yourself any blame for what happened in the MX and secondly,
when it comes to the decision Cabinet took about consultation,
have you changed the decision-making procedure at all. I think,
from what you said earlier on, that security decisions don't
necessarily have to go to the security committee of Cabinet. Is
that still the situation?
PM: No, in regard to the first question of do I accept any
blame. I was involved with the two other Ministers in the
decision that was finally taken on 16 Novembher. I can simply say
this. I repeat what I said before. It was a decision taken by
the three of us in integrity, and in good faith, and on the basis
of what we believed, in the circumstances, was in the best
interests of this country. Now, I can say no more than tfiat. I
can then, in regard to that stage, then when I was confronted
with the breadth of the reaction in this month of this yee~ r 1985,
then I accepted the responsibility of leadership of responding to
that. And I made the judgement that the continuing interests of
this country in regard to those two basic issues of the continuing
elements of the large relationship and the non-impairment of our
capacity to pursue our policies in the area of disarmaftient, that
they were not to be put in issue. I believe that I made the
correct decision there.
JOURNALIST: What about the second point
PM: I have answered that question before. I have nothing to add
to what I have said before.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said before that there obviously would
be a limit to consultations. What matters other than security
which you specifically mentioned does that apply to what matters
won't Caucus be consulted about?
PM: Well, if you want another example, on questions of the
exchange rate, for instance. I mean, you obviously are not going
to be discussing those with Caucus. I mean, that is a fairly
obvious example.
JOURNALIST: On that point, Prime Minister, the Australian Dollar
in the last hour has slipped down to new low of 70 cents. Do you
still believe the downward plunge a transient thing and unlikely
to continue? Or do you think that the time has arrived for
Government intervention appreciating the sensitivies?
PM: e Appreciating what?
JOURNALIST: The sensitivities to which you referred at the
weekend.
14
PM: Well, yes, and I am glad you acknowledge those. I don't
believe it is helpful for me to say anything more than I said on
Sunday and I don't intend to.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, a question on taxation in relation
to your comments on the Sunday show. In relation to the question
on the possible re-introduction of the broadly based indirect tax
system, would you favour any exclusions leading to and/ or the
operation of a differential tax base?
PM: I'm not going any further than I did on Sunday. I stated
the position broadly as I see it, and I would think as the
majority of Australians are coming to see it. Now, the detailed
work is going on at the level of officials and Ministers and will
proceed within the Party. I don't intend, at this point, to go
into any more details.