TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MIKE SWINSON, BRUCE MONTGOMERY
AND ANDREW FISHER, 7.30 REPORT, HOBART, 23 FEBRUARY 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Can we deal firstly with that issue of child
poverty and I ask you how can you deliver on your very
public commitment made in 1987 when you said that no
Australian child will live in poverty by 1990, given the
results of the Burdekin inquiry?
PM: Well as I made it clear at the time and I made clear
subsequently, what was obviously being conveyed by me then
was the point that as a result of the financial and very
considerable financial incentives and outlays that we would
make there would be no financial need. I never contemplated
that by government fiat you could intervene in the
interactions of families which will mean there are decisions
by children to leave, decisions by parents to throw kids
out. The statement was quite clear and the action which
followed it has been munificent.
JOURNALIST: But that action has been, has it not, directed
towards families that are together rather than kids who are
out on the street?
PM: But let me make it clear that no action by government
as such is going to stop the cases of kids being away from
their families, either by the decision of the parents or the
decision of the kids. Now what we've done I mean you link
0 the two now I'm entitled and I will respond to the two
sides of it. You talked about what I said in the election
speech in 1987. It was seriously said and it has been
seriously followed up and it is important tonight that
Commissioner Burdekin himself has said since the release of
his report that it was an. appropriate and very useful thing
that I've said and that we're doing. There will be an
outlay of hundreds, there is now an outlay of hundreds of
millions of additional dollars by this Government to give
effect to that promise and it will mean that by 1990 there
will be no financial need for any child in this country to
live in poverty. Now in regard to the area of actual
refuges again look at the record of the Government. In the
period since we've been in office an increase from $ 14M to
in outlays on refuges.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you seem to have qualified your
statement that no child will live in poverty in 1990 to
that there will be no financial need for them to be in
poverty in 1990, but the two aren't the same are they? It's
a qualification?
-2-
PM: It's not something I'm saying on your program now. I
made it immediately clear from that point on because it's
quite clear that no government, whether it's mine or any
other, will be able to create a situation where the money
having been made available into a family, that it's
necessarily going to be spent. I have made it quite clear
that as a result of what we do there will be no financial
need for a child to live in poverty because of the outlay of
the additional hundreds of millions of dollars through the
family assistance supplement.
JOURNALIST: But what can you tell the kids then who will be
in the streets in 1990 what should they be doing?
PM: the first point that we've got to make which
Commissioner Burdekin made. Don't say it is a matter for
Sgovernment alone. My Government or the state government or
local government. It's a matter for all levels of
government and it's a matter for community organisations and
it's a matter for families. So I mean your question is ill
founded according to Commissioner Burdekin himself. If
you're saying what do we say should be done. What we've got
to face up to is that this is a problem and a tragedy for
the whole Australian nation. And let me say in respect to
John Howard his response I welcome. What he said ( was that)
this is not an issue for political point scoring and I
welcome that and I respect him for it and I hope that that's
the attitide that will be adopted by all state governments
( break in transmission)
JOURNALIST: I just return briefly to that child poverty
issue for a moment. Is there anything that your Government
is going to do now as a result of that Burdekin report to
help those kids who are on the street?
PM: Yes well we're going to continue what we have been
doing and of course in the light of the report that will be
now examined very closely Mike by the relevant committee
here and when we've studied it I'll then of course want to
talk with the State Premiers and I trust and I believe that
we'll get a co-operative approach from them because as I
said before this is a tragedy that transcends politics and
parties and governments. I trust that once we've analysed
the report we'll do it expeditiously, that we'll get the
sort of co-operation from all levels of government and from
the community that the dimension of the problem deserves. I
would remind you that last October I made an offer of an
extra $ 40M to the States for additional funding for people
who are homeless and in crisis and that's an indication I
think Mike of the commitment that we have and no-one can
play politics on a thing like this.
JOURNALIST: Well Mr Hawke given that and that aside was
your promise at the Opera House in 1987 based on impressions
and filling in the details later?
-3-
PM: No of course it wasn't Barry. With respect that is
quite an absurd observation. It was based upon the
proposition of a considerable search that we'd done. That
it was open to government if the government was sufficiently
minded to undertake a massive increase in financial outlays
of more than a half a billion dollars under the family
allowance supplement. And that was intended as I said then
to create the situation that as far as was within the
financial capacity of government we would remove the
financial need for poverty and by 1990 we will have done
that. Now the Burdekin report is dealing with a situation
of an interaction of a whole range of social factors, family
breakups and so on, which are not within the power of any
level of government to deal with at that level. We've got
the results of that interaction of factors at the family
level. What we've all as a community got to do is to see in
the longer term whether there are issues that we can address
which is going to minimise the breakup of families but in
the meantime to ensure as Commissioner Burdekin says that
the services which are provided predominantly by States are
delivered more effectively and we do all that we can to
co-operate in that respect.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke I wonder whether we could turn to
Wesley Vale now. What is your Government going to do now
that the environmental parameters if you like are clear for
the operation of the Mill?
PM: Well you can't say that they are clear yet. Let me say
that what we'll do is abide by the agreement, the long
standing agreement Bruce that we have with Premier Gray.
And that long standing agreement is that once the Tasmanian
Parliament has made its decision then we will deal with the
matter expeditiously and as soon as the Tasmanian
Parliament's done that we will deal with it.
JOURNALIST: Well Mr Hawke you've probably been briefed on
the latest developments and you've probably been briefed
today on the State Labor Party in Tasmania, the State
Opposition saying that they'll oppose the deal in the State
Parliament next week. Do you belive that Robin Gray has
watered down those toughest guidelines in the world that he
announced in Janauary?
PM: On the evidence it seems to me that he has.
JOURNALIST: So what will you do Prime Minister?
PM: I've just told you what I'll do. I'll adhere to my
agreement as I always do and that agreement is that when the
Tasmanian Parliament has made its decision, and neither you
nor I can pre-empt that decision, they've got to meet and
make their decision. When we are presented with that
decision we will deal with it expeditiously.
-4-
JOURNALIST: Why do you think he's watered down the
guidelines? What is there to demonstrate that?
PM: Well there is some evidence in regard on what I know
and I've got to say this prima facie because we don't know
yet what the Parliament will decide down there but in regard
to the level of dioxins there seems to be some, it is
suggested, change in the interpreted document that has
now been agreed between Mr Gray and the joint venturers and
what was said before. Now if that's what emerges from the
decision of the Parliament that's something that we'll have
to look at at deal with.
JOURNALIST: Well given that then if Senator Richardson
recommends to you and to Cabinet tougher measures designed
to make the mill safe will you go along with that?
PM: Well it's a valiant attempt but you must you know be
very green if I may say so if you think that I'm going to
answer a hypothetical question, a hypothesis on a
hypothesis. we've got to first of all get the decision of
the Tasmanian Parliament then on the basis of whatever that
decision may be. I've got to have recommendations, it's not
only Bob Hawke but the Cabinet has to have recommendations
before it for my relevant Ministers on the basis of what
comes out of Tasmania. Now I'm not going to pre-empt either
what the Tasmanian Parliament does or says or what my
Ministers recommend to me. I will make my mind up with my
colleagues when I have the decision of the Parliament
and the submissions put before me by my relevant
ministers and that will be done in the Cabinet processes.
It won't be done on any television program as much as you'd
like me to do it there.
JOURNALIST: But Sir, with respect, all I asked was
PM: I'm an intelligent bloke, I know what you said and you
don't have to repeat it. You said if Senator Richardson
makes certain recommendations
JOURNALIST: Designed to make the mill safe.
PM: Yes, exactly. Now you ought to know if you've watched
me in politics I don't answer hypothetical questions.
JOURNALIST: But I think we all want a safe mill, do we not?
PM: I'm sure we all want a safe mill. Look, let me make it
clear in terms of the principles that will be in my mind
when I consider it, and I think you're perfectly entitled to
have that. I'm not trying to dodge behind this question and
saying I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions. I'm
happy to tell you and all my friends in Tasmania the
principle that's in my mind. It's this, quite clear.
Firstly, that this and future generations in Australia have
a fundamental balance of payments problem and if we can have
a situation where enterprise can produce outcomes which is
( PM cont) going to significantly improve that balance of
payments situation then we have to seriously examine the
project. So the project that has been put before us is
going to be seriously examined. But as this Government has
demonstrated in six years now, Barry, we don't support
development at any price, at any cost and I can assure you,
speaking for Bob Hawke and I'm sure it will be the position
of all my colleagues, we will examine very very closely
indeed all the evidence available as to what are suggested
as the harmful effects of the proposal. We will come down
with what is the right balance in our judgement between
Australia's desire to improve its external accounts position
and the obligation that is upon all levels of government to
ensure that development doesn't proceed at a price which is
legitimately unacceptable for this and future generations.
Now I can't, having said that Barry, answer the hypothetical
question you put until I know precisely from the decision of
the Tasmanian parliament what it is that we're dealing with
and then what recommendations I'm dealing with with my
ministers. JOURNALIST: Money comes into it does it?
PM: Of course money comes into it. Money comes into every
decision that every individual
JOURNALIST: $ 300 million worth
PM: There may be an
JOURNALIST: PM: No, no, that's what is suggested by the venturers. Now
I don't necessarily accept that that's the accurate figure.
JOURNALIST: But your press statement of the 17th of October
quotes you as saying it will mean up to $ 300 million net
annual addition
PM: And as you quote, " up to" is right, because one uses
the phrase " up to" because these are the figures that are
put. Now I don't necessarily accept every figure that is
put. I didn't say it will mean that and the figures are
part of the close examination that will have to be
undertaken by the ministers who make the recommendations to
us. In other words, part of the analysis will have to be
what's the best decision you can make as to the likely
effect on Australia's current account situation over a
projected period of 20 years or so to try and get that
figure as accurately as you can. And against that you'll
have to try and assess as clearly as you can what is the
harm that on the best evidence may be done environmentally,
on land and in the ocean.
JOURNALIST: Can I just move on to the issue of Salman
Rushdie shortly for a moment. Why haven't you taken strong
diplomatic action to make sure that Tehran realises that
what they're on about isn't accepted?
-6-
PM: Well, we have taken strong action. We have conveyed in
the very clearest words that the action Mike of the
Ayatollah and those around him offends all sensible and
decent principles of international relationships. That is
our position.
JOURNALIST: It's not a very strong reproach though is it
when you compare it to European nations and to Canada where
they've actually withdrawn heads of delegations.
PM: They have withdrawn heads of delegations, I accept
that, but I could not have conveyed, it could not have been
conveyed more clearly to the authorities what our position
is. Now quite frankly I'm not trying to do dodge this
issue. We will and are looking at whether it is appropriate
to take further action and indeed I've had some discussions
this afternoon with Gareth Evans, my foreign minister, and
it may be that we will take further action. But at this
stage what was necessary we thought was to leave the
authorities in Iran in no doubt at all, no doubt at all,
that this sort of tactic of threatening to execute someone
who has had the temerity to express a point of view with
which you disagree, that that's not on, it's not acceptable.
Now it may be as I say that it's appropriate having done
that to take further measures.
JOURNALIST: Would you withdraw your Ambassador from Tehran
if Salman Rushdie lived in Australia?
PM: You're a very good bloke at hypothetical questions. I
suppose that if the person involved was an Australian
citizen you would have a more compelling set of imperatives
operating on you Barry. But I'm not ruling out, let me make
it clear, I'm not ruling out the possibility of something
more than we've done, but I think in the conduct of
relations between countries there is an argument for not
necessarily playing all your cards at once, provided that as
a matter of principle you've made it clear to the government
with which you're dealing that an act which is unacceptable
is understood by them as being such in your judgement. Now
that we've done, and it is legitimate now, quite legitimate
to ask the question in the light of further developments
whether more should be done. We are considering that.
JOURNALIST: So does that mean that the principle waters
down, depends on the distance
PM: No it doesn't. It may be a clever way which satisfies
your sense of drama of putting it. It's not. I'm simply
saying quite honestly that we immediately made the position
clear and we will consider if more needs to be done. I
honestly if it was an Australian citizen whose life was
being threatened it is in the nature of events true of every
nation that every nation gets more concerned, more involved,
indeed has a greater direct responsibility in regard to its
own citizens. There's nothing strange about that, of course
each national government around the world has the greatest
-7-
( PM cont) responsibility for its own citizens. But we live
in an international, interrelated world and so we did
express a view on international principles if you like.
JOURNALIST: Do you have any fears about our trade imbalance
with Iran if in fact we do go the whole hog and decide to
withdraw our head of delegation? As I understand it we have
exports of about $ 400 million a year to Iran
PM: Sure, sure. I can best answer that question by getting
out of that field of hypothesis and getting down to what
we've been prepared to do. When the Gulf conflict was on
between Iran and Iraq there was a request made to me, to the
Government, for the provision of Australian personnel who
would be expert in mine detection and it was said to me,
part of the advice that came to me was no we shouldn't do
that because if we were to do that that would have an
adverse impact in the areas that you're talking about,
adversely impact on our trade. Now I said well yes it may
have that but I believe that in the circumstances that
existed at that time it was appropriate that Australia
should make that contribution, we couldn't be just leaving
it to others. So we indicated that we were prepared and did
make available those personnel. So I can show to you on the
historical record that I won't allow considerations of trade
to stand in the way of what I believe is the appropriate
decision as I've demonstrated there. In this case obviously
I won't allow trading considerations to stand in the way if
in fact as I look at it with my colleague the foreign
minister and others it seems to me that we need to take the
next step. But it seems that Australia's interests and
Australians generally would, say, approve of an approach
where government has said we've told the government of Iran
that sort of conduct is simply not acceptable and then to
know that the government is keeping the situation under
review and that if it's appropriate will go further.
O JOURNALIST: Can I leave that issue now and go back to
Tasmanian issues and the first point is forestry.
Conservationists in the southern forests are back into
direct action again today suggesting that the forest accord
between Tasmania and the Federal Government has been broken.
Does it take action by them, this is the Federal Government,
to wake up to responsibilities you've got on that accord?
PM: I regard the question as offensive but I'm not going to
get upset about it. It's deliberately offensively put. We
have an agreement with the Tasmanian government and we will
honour that agreement. I don't accept that it's not being
honoured despite, for your own purposes, how offensively you
want to put a question.
JOURNALIST: Just back on Wesley Vale, are you concerned or
disturbed and you remember the Franklin Dam and the works
that the hydroelectric commission continued until the High
Court stopped the dam and you paid out $ 50 million for that
work. Are you concerned that the Wesley Vale pulp mill
developers have already started work on Wesley Vale on the
pulp mill?
PM: what they have done, as I understand it, they've
started to put some road or the basis of a road in there.
Let me make it quite clear, in a situation like this they do
that in a sense at their own risk because they know what the
situation is.
JOURNALIST: I'm sorry, we've run out of time, we're right
at 8 o'clock, we'll have to leave it there. I'm sorry for
the hiccoughs and thank you for joining us.
PM: It's been my pleasure, thank you very much indeed.
ends
0 1