I
E. 0. E. PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRIME MINISTER ON JOHN LAWS 6 SEPTEMBER 1985
LAWS: PM: very much the victim of his own bek f -planning
and acvo strategy though I don't in any sense say that
now because of what I said yesterday. It's very hard to understand
( EVAJ. just how much he'll be xf .' nJ so I don't want
to add to it. But I think he would be the first to admit that
his planning and handling of it were somewhat less than perfect.
LAWS: I agree with that and I'm quite sure that he is suffering
a little today and I feel very sorry for him because obviously
he trusted some people that.. couldn't be trusted.
PM: Yes, yes that's right.
LAWS: That must come as a nasty shock to a man who puts faith
in others.
PM: Oh well, I have been saying for sometime, though I don't
know whether I have said it to you John, that a lot of time
the media have talked about factional CFf'l xU in the Labor
Party but I really believe and know that the idealogical splits
and factions in the Liberal Party are very much deeper and
that d 1h kvc 1pt wkA s6a," oa" atodJ.
LAWS: A lot of the newspaper reports are suggesting that
it'll be a revitalised Opposition. Do you think it will be?
PM: I think the Opposition will probably be somewhat better
organised under John Howard. I mean there's the same people
there; you can't change the constituencies that he has got
but I think it will be somewhat better organised but I look
forward to that. It's a matter of, I think, pretty common
consensus in the Galleryoo4 fv most observantikrwe WaJeeœ& r
JI+ MlOCIA ' 6 Parliamentary Opposition. I think they will be
better organised now; that's good. I mean, it will mean that
Ministers will be that much more on their toes.
LAWS: Yes. The front page oi the Sun here says " Howard Challen,.:
Get Hawke Anywhere Anytime. I'll take Mr Hawke on any day.
I'll take him on on the hustings, on television, anytime.
PM: Ah well, I can assure you that I'm amused by that. The
interesting and basic fact which people . have to recognise
is that this is not something new; they've had Mr Howard before.
They had him in charge of Australia's economy when it went
into its worst recession ever. 11e. fdon't have to speculate
about Mr Howard's policies. had them in operation and
it brought Australia to its knees and if Mr Howard wants to
promise a return to the same, which is what he is doing, well
that suits me fine. We'll deal with Mr Howard wherever.
Having said that, I rang him up when he got the job and congratulated
him him because we have a good personal relationship. I have
no reason to believe that won't continue, but it won't mean
that it won't be on for young and all.
LAWS: Have you spoken to Mr Peacock?(
PM: I did. I rang him. I got him when he was on the plane
corming back to Melbourne last night; I got him on his return.
I just felt in human terms for him and for his wife, Margaret.
I know what they must've been going through and I just said
to him ( I mean I don't go into the details of the conversation)
but I said look I don't want to be hypocritical about this
but I just express my feelings for you and what you're going
through and I think if you can't have these sort of decencies
in politics it's a pretty rough old game.
LAWS: Yes, I agree with that. Do you think it's the end
of the political line for Andrew Peacock?
PM: Ah, its obviously the end of the line as far as leadership
is concerned; but no, I would think he still has a contribution
to make to theM. My hunch is that he would seek to
get the Shadow Foreign Affairs portfolio; one in which he
is comfortable, which he is best equipped. one of his great
problems in leadership is that he really had no knowledge
of or capacity really in the economic area and that was always
a difficulty for Andrew whereas he had a long experience in
the Foreign Affairs. I would tend to think that that's what
he'd want to go back to and I would think he has, for the
Liberals, a contribution to make there.
LAWS: What really was his undoing yesterday?
PM: Well, his undoing was a lack of systematic thinking through
and planning. He understandably had concerns about the
unpreparedness of Mr Howard to give him the degree of loyalty
to which he thought he was entitled but then having made that
first decision in the first part of the thinking process,
that is, I want to get that loyalty, couldn't get it, then
seemed to think that the only thing to do was to move for
the demotion of Mr Howard from the Deputy Leadership but hadn't
thought the mechanics of that through. He hadn't, in advance,
thouqlht . olif Mr How.-ard won't agree to -wh at 1rn Favir. a.
I've then got to have a candidate ag nc41n; t nir, whoD is _ tg ' c
to be? Hie hadn't done all that thinking. And then, of course,
when he got to the Party Room itself, on all the evidence,
-3-
he seems not to have made it clear to the members of his Caucus
what was involved. Now, may I say that it's not only a reflection
on, perhaps, his lack of strategic capacity but, being as
charitable as one can and you know I've got enormous reserves
of charity when it comes to talking about the Liberals, but
they must be a pretty dumb crew if they didn't understand
what it was about.-
LAWS: That's right. That's the thing that I couldn't come
to terms with. How he could walk out into it with his eyes
open. Because he walked right into it.
PM: Well, he made the mistake. But then John you've really
got to say that they must be a pretty dumb crew if they didn't
understand that if they voted for John Howard to stay as the
Deputy Leadership, it was a vote of no confidence in Andrew.
But, nevertheless, he should have spelt it out.
LAWS: But don't you think it was perhaps a deliberate vote
of no confidence in Andrew?
PM: No, on the evidence we have, John, that was not generally
the case. I think for a lot of people who voted it was; yes,
I agree with that but for some of them and, of course, you
are talking in margins where three or four made the difference,
there were at least that number who didn't realise what they'd
done. LAWS: Do you really think that he had not choice but to resign?
HAWKE: Well, no he did have another choice. Indeed when
he left the Party Room with the other three leaders they made
it clear to him that there was no necessity to resign. But
I pay him tribute. There was no choice in the longer term.
He could have held the leadership yesterday but a challenge
would have been inevitable within a relatively short time
and I think Andrew's judgement was., correctly, that that would
happen and that if that was going to be the case it was in
the best interests of the Party to go now, rather than later.
LAWS: Do you think the whole thing that brought it about
the request that John Howard should state categorically that
he wouldn't challenge him do you think that was necessary
initially?
PM: Well, I think it probably could have been avoided. I
mean, as John Howard said, it wasn't something that had been
required of anyone else in the past to which Andrew probably
would answer, yes, but no one else in the past has been rfp"
at the leader the way he had been. No, I think Andrew himself
would agree that, VWiih the benefit of hindsight, that it could
of been handled differently and should of been from his point
of view; but I still, John, then go to the point that what
happened yesterday wasn't just about the personalities of
Peacock and Howard. There is very deep and abiding ideological
differences in the Liberal Party and they were reflected
in a very large measure in what happened yesterday and that's
why no one should delude themselves that yesterday really
settled the whole issue. It hasn't. The factionalism and
the ideological differences in the Liberal Party are going
to continue.
LAWS: The demand t hat Andrew Peacock wanted to place upon
John Howard to me was extraordinary, I even thought it was
unnecessary. Is it the sort of demand that you would ever
place on anybody?
PM: I would never need to, John. I mean I could only talk
about the realities. In Lionel Bowen I have a very competent
and totally loyal and committed Deputy Leader. ut I think
really the view expressed by John Howard is, in this respect,
adequate that you live or die on your performance and if you're
performing well, you're not in danger, and it's really only
if you've got some sort of apprehension about how you're
performing and how troops are lining up, that you are going
to start thinking like that I think.
LAWS: Yes. Mr Peacock was expressing publicly that he was
very pleased with his own performance.
PM: Well, I suppose that it would be natural enough that
he would. But I refrained yesterday and I don't really want
to today to comment on his performance as Leader. I really
think it's impossible for you or I to understand, John, just
the trauma he and Margaret are going through. I don't think
it'ys the time to.
LAWS: I know, I agree with that. I feel very sorry for him
because I think to be publicly humiliated, and he was, is
tough on anybody ( Yeah, sure) and I do feel sorry for him
today, but I think he is very fortunate to have the support
of his wife, Margaret, who, I think, under these circumstances
would be exceptionally supportive.
PM: There is no doubt about that.
LAWS: Okay. Well; it was good to talk to you. I hope we
can talk to each other again soon.
PM: I hope so, John. All the best.
LAWS: Thank you very much. Bye. Prime Minister of Australia,
Bob Hawke.