4" t; 7
A
PRIME MRAINITE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PM ON SUNDAY--4 MAY 1986
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
OAKES: What are you going to do about Lionel Murphy?,
PM: Well the first thing is that I'm going to make no comment
about Lionel Murphy, Laurie.
OAKES: But how can you get away with making no comment on an
issue that is so important the integrity of the High Court.
PM: My responsibility is not to make a comment on this program
and I mean no disrespect to you in saying that and I know you
appreciate that. My responsibility and the responsibility of the
Government is to study whatever may, or in a sense may not be
relevant to this question, well do that.
RAMSAY: Despite what you've said, he plans to return to the
High Court, to sit on the High Court bench next Tuesday. Now
you're quite satisfied that the integrity and status of the High
Court is not going to be damaged by him going back in the midst
of a continuing controversy, both in the public and the political
arena about Mr Justice Murphy.
PM: Let me just eay. two things. Firstly, to repeat I'm not
going to make sWz.'-osmnt about Mr Justice Lionel Murphy and in
regard to the High Court, I and my government will have clearly
in our considerations the position and integrity of the High
Court of Australia.
OAKES: Well your refusal to comment will be seen as refusing to
endorse his return. Isn't that in effect the comment?
PM: It's for others to interpret. It's for me to act properly.
I will do that.
RAMSAY: Can we ask you why your Deputy Prime Minister, the
Attorney General, Mr Bowen, saw the Chief Justice of the High
Court yesterday?
PM: Yes you can ask me but you won't get an answer.
RAMISAY: Did he do so on your behalf?
PM: Not on my behalf, but with my knowledge.
OAKES: Prime Minister has you read the secret volume of the
Stewart Royal Commission Report?
PM: I haven't read it fully yet.
OAKES: Are there references to Mr Justice Murphy in it.
PM: Laurie you don't expect me to answer that and I'm not going
to. OAKES: But isn't that crucial to the whole question of whether
he should return?
PM: It may or may not be Laurie, but let me repeat the answer
I've given before and I don't want to be disrespectful to you but
let me say it firmly so you'll have it clearly in your mind. My
responsibility is to study this matter, as I will to discuss it
with my colleagues and in the confidence of Cabinet and not on
the publicity of this program and I'm not going to do it.
RAMSAY: Mr Hawke I'm just going to ask you another question
about this. Can you be satisfied that the integrity of the High
Court can be preserved while Justice Murphy continues to sit on
the High Court while this controversy goes on?
PM: It is clear from the previous answers given Alan that I'm
not going to answer that question.
OAKES: Well moving on to a related matter but not specifically
on Justice Murphy. The New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, has
attacked Mr Clarrie Briese who was the main witness against the
judge in the recent court case. Does Mr Briese, who deals with
federal issues as well as state law, have your confidence?
PM: I've heard that question before and my answer is that that's
a matter within New South Wales. I'm not going to make any
comment on that.
OAKES: But when you heard it before
PM: I'm not going to make any comment on it Laurie. You can
rephrase the question 17 different ways. my answer will remain
the same, I have no comment.
RAMSAY: Your Attorney General answer a question of that sort in
the Parliament.
PM: Yes I was sitting in the Parliament when he answered, yes.
RAMSAY: Well why shouldn't you be asked that sort of question
and why shouldn't you answer it?
PM: You're perfectly entitled to ask it. I have no objection to
you asking the question. I'm not going to add to the answer I've
already given to you.
OAKES: Well Mr Justice Stewart made some recommendations about
widening state police powers to tap telephones. What's your
attitude to those?
PM: Well I'm going to study the recommendations in full over
this weekend and see to what extent it may be necessary, if we
agree to those recommendations, to go beyond the legislation
which the Attorney General has already prepared. And we'll be
considering this matter in the near future.
RAMSAY: Are you confident, Mr Hawke, that you could overcome
hostility within the Caucus to this question of the wider
extension of phone taps given the whole area of civil liberties?
PM: Well I'm confident that if the Cabinet makes a decision
which we believe is the appropriate one, having considered the
recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart, that the Caucus would
accept, with proper exposition, what the Cabinet puts to them.
We have a good record of cooperation and understanding with the
Caucus. I see no reason to see that's going to come to an end.
OAKES: Prime Minister, do you think it would have been better
when this Murphy affair first blew up, the Age tapes, to have had
a Royal Commission then, into the whole matter?
PM: No. I believe that the course of action that was taken, the
decision of the Government was correct. Now we will be, as I
say, considering this issue now. I'm not concerned with the
past. I'm concerned with the present and the future.
RAMSAY: You don't find any embarrassment for your government
given that two senior members of your government, early in the
piece, branded these tapes, or these transcripts of the tapes as
phoneys and fakes?
PM: If you wanted me to I could quote here at length from the
first volume of Mr Justice Stewart to give precisely the very
careful interpretation he's given as to the tapes and the
transcripts. Now let me say it is not a black and white case, as
you know f rom -having read what Mr Justice Stewart had to say in
volume one.
OAKES: Has any member of the Government spoken to Mr Justice
Murphy about his future?
PM: Not that I'm aware of.
OAKES: You haven't asked anyone to do that?
PM: No.
OAKES: Will you do that?
PM: I will adhere to the answer I gave to this question at the
beginning. I'm not saying anything more. I have no comment
about this issue.
OAKES: In the light of that Prime Minister, we will ask you
about Indonesia?
PM: Good.
OAKES: How serious is the rift with Jakarta?
PM: I don't think we can honestly understate it, Laurie. I
think it has been serious. And I think perhaps there has been a
tendency in the past in some quarters to overstate the importance
of the relationship, to believe that there is more than can be
obtained from the relationship than intrinsically can in fact
occur. As you know, I think both Bill Hayden and I have worked
assiduously from day one to try and create a viable, constructive
relationship with Indonesia. I don't regret that and we will
continue to try and have a constructive relationship. But no
Government led by me is going to have a grovelling relationship,
one in which, if there is capricious action on the part of
Indonesia, that we accept that without comment. And as I had
cause to say while I was overseas, and repeated on the floor of
the Parliament, and have pleasure of saying again on your
program, what Indonesia must understand is that this is a full
democracy. And a distinguishing characteristic of this and of
other full democracies is the freedom of the press. That is not
something that is on the bargaining table as far as I am
concerned and never will be as far as I am concerned.
OAKES: You mentioned the work you have done to improve relations
you went to Indonesia very early in your Prime Ministership,
you fought the left wing of the Labor Party to change policy in
the light of that, to what extent do what extent do you regard
what has happened as a personal slap in the face.
PM: I don't think it is a personal slap in the face. I would
have hoped that those in authority would have been aware of the
hard and continuous work that I, and more particularly Bill
because it is his portfolio area, have been doing to try and
create that relationaship. And I guess they must be aware that
this has been some sort of a setback. But what I am concerned
about is the interests of Australia and this nation, not about
personal setbacks. And we are just going to have to conduct this
relationship in a way which seeks as best we can to protect and
advance the interests of Australia. That is what we will do.
RAM4SAY: Mr Hawke, what do you think the cost to Australia would
be if this rift proved to be long term?
PM: Alan, I think you would appreciate, it is hard to quantify
that. Indonesia is a nation of 160 million people, next to Papua
New Guinea, in a sense our nearest neighbour, we are not going to
say or look, if we say something which someone may not like that
may hurt us. I believe that Australians want the dignity of
Australia to be maintained, it is going to be under this
Government. OAKES: Prime Minister, what are the defence implications of
this row with Indonesia?
PM: Well, first of all, in simple money terms, we have
million-odd defence cooperation program. I notice that General
Moerdani has given some indications that he doesn't think it is
worth much. If they make the decision that they don't want that
cooperation, then that will be their decision. I think it would
be an unfortunate decision because I think it has mutual
advantages. But don't let us get to the point, Laurie, of
believing that because we are going through this unfortunate
experience at the moment that there is any threat situation
emerging. I don't believe that is the case.
OAKES: The Indonesian Armed Forces newspaper has attacked
Australia several times in the last few weeks.
PM: I have noticed that and I guess the paradox doesn't escape
you, Laurie, that the originating factor recently in this
situation has been an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, over
which we as a Government, not only have no control but no
knowledge. They take that as a slight upon them. Yet in their
official army newspaper, which is directly under the control of
the army and senior members of the administration, they attack
us. There is a paradox there.
OAKES: But it is sabre rattling isn't it?
PM: I don't want to call it sabre rattling. I think it is very
unfortunate. And of course, the important thing is that the
basis of the articles in the army newspapers is totally specious.
L-Y~ I IIIII ~-C~-Y--LIU
OAKES: Prime Minister, what's the Hawke Government's main
priority maintaining the levels of social benefits, or
maintaining the Trilogy?
PM: well I think the main purpose of this government is to
maintain the thrust of economic policy, which has given us high
levels of growth, high levels of employment growth, with
containable levels of inflation. In 1986, and I will not give , a
long economic exposition, but I simply make the point that we
have the constraints during this year of the current account and
so we've had to conduct policy in a way which is bringing back
somewhat the levels of growth. We can't afford to be sucking in
the level of imports that we've had. So growth will be
constrained somewhat, but not in a way that is going to stop
employment growth.
RAMSAY: But can you maintain present level, or increase the
present level of welfare benefits and still keep your trilogy
promises? PM: I believe that the basic Trilogy promise, which refers to
the life of the Parliament, will be maintained. I think we have
to exercise a constraint upon ourselves, Alan, if we're going to
make sure that the growth that we want is there without
dissipating inflation. And it is going to be hard in 1986. I've
said that, but I believe that we're going to get there.
OAKES: To what extent will maintaining the Trilogy involve
cutting back on welfare programs?
PM: I don't think it's a question of cutting back on welfare.
Within the Trilogy you're still able to have real growth, as you
appreciate. It's going to be question of trying to rearrange
priorities. We're going through a very tough period in the
Expenditure Review Committee, in leading up to the Budget. It's
not easy, tough task. But we'll get there, we've delivered the
goods in a way that I think no other government in the post war
period is done with such responsibility. We've got the runs on
the board and I think we'll get them there again.
RAMSAY: You mention the Expenditure Review Committee. Have you
yet been able to cut the $ 1.4 billion that Paul Keating
PM: No we're still got a way to go Alan.
RAMISAY: How far have you got?
PM: Come on, I can't give you those figures.
OAKES: Prime minister, how ironclad is your promise to cut
taxes? PM: The tax cuts will be delivered.
OAKES: Well Senator Walsh said in the Senate yesterday that
could depend on whether your fringe tax legislation got through
the Senate. Is it conditional only?
PM: Well obviously the capacity to deliver relates to the
revenue you get. Now no government has been more explicit in its
exposition of its fiscal policy than we have. And we set out
what the measured revenue would be from the tax changes. Now
obviously that constitutes our capacity. Now I believe that the
Opposition, if such you can call it, and the Democrats have got a
very heavy responsibility if they're going to deny to government,
substantially deny to government, the revenue capacity, then they
must recognise that that has implications for the Government in
terms of capacity to deliver tax cuts.
RAMSAY: So you're saying if they do muck about with the
legislation in the Senate some part or portion of these very
specific tax cuts, in the next two years, may be reduced.
PM: I'm, if I may say so, much more sophisticated than saying if
they much about, Alan. I said, if you had a substantial
interference with your revenue capacity measures, then by
definition, that must affect. Now I hope, and I believe
certainly in regard to the Democrats because you can't as an
intelligent person expect anything reasonable from this
Opposition, but as far as the Democrats are concerned I think we
have an undertaking and an understanding with them that they will
substantially pass, or facilitate the passing of our measures.
OAKES: So in that event the tax cuts will go through as promised
and come into effect in September.
PM: Well I've given you the answers about the tax cuts, which is
the appropriate one. I can't add anything more to it.
8
OAKES: Prime Minister, there are now many more people on the
dole than are looking a for full time employment. And last week
on this program Senator Chipp said that something had to be done
about dole bludgers. Is that a problem that concerns you
seriously? And if so, what can you do about it, what will you do
about it?
* PM: we are looking at the question, Laurie, of the exercise by
the Department of the work test. There is work being done on
that. And we expect to get further reports on it. I don't want
to leave the impression, however, that Australia is bedevilled
with dole bludgers. I think that that syndrome has substantially
disappeared. I accept the fact that there are obviously some who
are getting the benefit who shouldn't be. That is why we are
looking at the question of the way in the work test is applied.
I think there can be improvements. And if we can see ways in
which that can be done it will be.
RAMSAY: Prime Minister, your biographer, Blanche d'Alpuget,
suggested in a recent article that you had become rather bored
and rather tired and in fact the whole thrust of her article
suggested that you were a more boring man than you used to be.
How do you react to that?
PM: It is for others'-to judge whether I am boring or not, Alan.
I am not bored. I can honestly say I have never felt more
vibrant in the job, happier, than I am now. I had a period
before the last election when I was down and dispirited. And I
don't go into that. The reasons for that are gone. And I feel
well. Hazel has got me well and truly into a Pritikin diet which
is doing marvels for me both physically and I think mentally as
well. The challenges are there, I am enjoying them. And the
team I have got working with me I like. No man, I believe Alan,
could be given a greater responsibility, opportunity than I am.
And I am enjoying the challenge.
OAKES: Prime Minister, thank you very much.
PM: Thank you Laurie and Alan.
ends