TRANSCRIPT OF UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH TOM O'BYRNE, TAS TV,
14 APRIL 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
O'BYRNE: Well Mr Hawke, you've ruled out an election this
year. Have you ruled that election out simply because of
the vote of cynicism about this wage and tax package?
PM: Voted it out for the very simple reason that it's not
due in any sense. The fact of the matter is that it was a
year ago that I promised the people of Australia, Tom, that
there would be tax cuts from July 1, 1989, provided that
there'd been wage restraint in 88/ 89 and that we got
agreement for wage restraint into 89/ 90. Now the wage
restraint has been exercised by Australians to their great
credit. We've got an agreement for similar restraint for
next year so what I'm doing is delivering a promise I made
twelve months ago. That's why we've got the the tax cuts
now, it had nothing to do with an election. The situation
would have been of course, Tom, if I hadn't now delivered
the tax cuts people would say ' Mr Hawke you promised them,
you've broken your promise'. I'm delivering the promise.
There's only one person that's introduced the question of an
early election and that's John Howard. of course he's just
trying to divert attention from the substance of what we've
delivered. O'BYRNE: But do you recognise that there is still deep vote
of cynicism out in the community?
PM: I don't think it's cynicism. I think that the voters
feel that they're having a pretty tough time and in some
respects they are because of high interest rates. I don't
avoid that fact. But I understand that when the tax cuts go
into the pockets as they will from July 1, with the delivery
of the benefits in regard to children and other family
allowances, like the dependent spouse rebate, that they will
appreciate the benefit of what we've done and particularly,
Tom, they will appreciate the fact that this is being
delivered in a way which is non inflationary, which is going
to stop a wages outburst and that's good for the country.
Both Paul Keating and I know that what we're doing is
creating the situation within which, as time goes on, we
will be able to see falling interest rates. It would be
irresponsible to bring them down now.
-2-
O'BYRNE: Well, housing prices aren't as bad in Tasmania as
they are in Melbourne and Sydney, but still interest rates
are at 16 percent. When do you believe they can start
trending downwards?
PM: Well I've said, Tom, before the end of this year. I
don't make any immediate forecasts about what's going to
happen today and tomorrow, because I've always resisted
doing that, because if a Prime Minister says something about
those sort of things it can affect the market of itself.
But we need high interest rates at the moment now. I mean,
I don't want them high, no politician in his right mind
wants them high for a moment longer than necessary. But
we've got to have them high now because we've got to reduce
somewhat the height of economic activity. It's got to come
back a bit so that we don't suck in so many imports.
O'BYRNE: Well how long do we need them that high?
PM: Well, that's going to depend upon how soon we see the
evidence of some cooling off of the economy. I wonder, Tom,
whether I could make the point, with your indulgence through
this program, to your viewers to say that the way in which
they can involve themselves in doing the best for the
Australian economy is, now that these tax cuts, family
allowances are coming through to the extent that they're
saved and that they are spent, I would hope that they would
hope that they would always try and spend them on the
Australian made product if it's possible because what we've
got to try and do, as I say, is to cut down on this high
level of imports which is causing the problem.
O'BYRNE: The Treasurer, in his statement, also mentioned
that part of the burden would have to be borne by States, no
doubt that's the Premiers Conference next month. Where in
fact will those cuts take place?
PM: Well, as to what within States they do, that's a matter
for States but let me make this point. That the reason why
the States have to play their part is that the whole package
that we've brought in has got the two purposes. One of
course is to give to people, Tom, the benefits that they
need and deserve, but also it's done in a way which is going
to reduce the level of wage increases. The States are going
to benefit from that overall package that we've brought in
to the extent that we lower the level of wage increases that
we will, then the States get the benefit and they've got to
play their part in it. But, as always, Tasmania will be
looked at sympathetically as far as we're concerned. I
notice, if I may say so Tom, that we're getting recently
down there the sort of outburst we get from some Tasmanians
at times, they don't understand the meaning of accuracy and
the suggestion that in some of the things that we do in
-3-
( PM cont): regards to our own capital outlays that we're
not giving Tasmania its share. Now I'd just like to make
the point on that Tom, that neither under this Government or
under any previous Government, has Commonwealth own
purposes, capital outlays, been regarded, nor should it be
regarded, as a form of State assistance. Any Commonwealth
Government has to make its decisions about its capital
outlays in terms of what the needs and the priorities are.
The fact is, of course, that with the, generally speaking,
with the concentration of the population elsewhere that
that's where most of the work will be done. It's not done
on a political basis. Let me make it clear. For instance
in this year, on a per capita basis, the largest
Commonwealth own purpose capital outlays will be in the
non-Labor State of New South Wales. I mean, that's the way
it is.
O'BYRNE: Well, some conservative governments, and
particularly the Tasmanian Government in the past, has said
that while the Federal Government takes the knife to the
State Governments, they're not prepared to take the knife to
their own Commonwealth spending.
PM: Well, of course, that's absolutely untrue. The fact is
that there has been a real reduction in Commonwealth outlays
for the last three years. That's never happened before and
that's what I've done with my colleagues. The last three
years, and for the next one coming up, there will be a real
reduction in Commonwealth outlays. It is the States that
have been more profligate. The fact is that in terms of the
public sector borrowing requirement we've got ours in a
position where it's a considerable minus. We've cut right
back. The States are above, it's only our surplus in this
regard which has brought the public sector borrowing
requirement to zero. Now, it is just another furphy that's
put around by rather desperate conservative ministers like,
I understand, and I regard it as remarkable, I hear that
just recently down there some people in the Tasmanian
Government have been saying that we've knocked off the
commitment that I made before to Launceston to have the air
traffic services staff facility put in at Launceston. We've
done that. I did that, may I say, against a lot of
opposition because there was a lot of pressure upon me to
put that on the mainland. They've said there were the
arguments were better to have it here in Canberra and I said
' no, I believe that where we can, we've got to help
Tasmania'. I've done that and what gratitude do I get for
it from those in the Tasmanian Government? They seek to lie
to the Tasmanian people and say I've taken that back.
O'BRYNE: Well if we could just get back to the State
reductions that the Treasurer was talking about a couple of
days ago.
-4-
PM: Yes.
O'BYRNE: If the Commonwealth goes ahead with those
reductions to the States and the States, particularly
Tasmania then imposes increased taxes and charges on the
community, isn't that simply shifting the blame?
PM: It's not a question of shifting the blame. What that
question implies, Tom, is that there's no responsibility on
State governments to exercise restraint, but all they can
ever do is put up charges. Now, we've had to do it. I
mean, when I came to office in ' 83 we had a deficit of the
best part of $ 10 billion staring us in the face. Now I've
turned that around into surplus and we've done that in large
measure because we've cut back on programs, reassessed
priorities and as far as taxation is concerned, successively
reduced taxation. When we came in the top rate that we
inherited from the conservatives was 60 cents and a bottom
rate of 30. Now I've brought that down, the tops to 49,
will be 47 from next January and the bottom rate from
down to 21. So we've reduced taxation, we've broadened a
base so that those who, under conservative governments,
weren't paying their tax now pay it. Now the Tasmanian
Government can't avoid the responsibility of being decent
managers. They are bad economic managers and they can't
dodge that conclusion.
O'BYRNE: So over the past four or five years you still
believe that the Tasmanian Government, the State Liberal
Government, hasn't shouldered its national responsibility?
PM: It hasn't. What Mr Gray does is just bleat. Bleats
all the time and it's no accident that he has, in many
respects, the worst economic statistics of any State. It's
because he's an incompetent manager and you can't, no State
can do that. I mean, we've set an example, we've reduced
taxes and reduced them considerably from the conservative
levels, we've looked at our own programs and where they can
be amended they have been and we've got things going. Mr
Gray just bleats and he's got to do better than that.
O'BYRNE: Well, an issue still of great moment here in
Tasmania is talk of a pulp mill in Tasmania.
PM: Yes.
O'BYRNE: It's now switched from one pulp mill to two
smaller mills. What would you prefer to see in Australia
and particularly in Tasmania, one large project or smaller
downstream processing
PM: It's not a question of one large one or two smaller
ones. Our position is quite simply this. I make the points
in succession. Firstly we do want to see in Australia, Tom,
( PM cont): a situation where there is processing of our raw
material because that is good for Australia. It's good in
employment terms, it's good in balance of payment terms. So
we want to see that. But secondly, you can't make
generalisation about, for instance, pulp mills. In regard
to the proposal that was put up, there was no way that I
with my colleagues, finally studied the environmental
implications of the Wesley Vale proposal, that that could go
ahead in that form. We were not going to tolerate the
pumping into the ocean there each day of 13 tonnes of these
organic chlorines. Now that wasn't on. Now, if in fact,
proposals can be put up whether it's for one large one or
two smaller ones, which satisfy Tasmanians as well as the
rest of Australia but particularly Tasmanians concerned
about these environmental issues, then from our point of
view, it will get our support. But I mean I was down there
in Tasmania, as you know Tom, in the weeks before we finally
made that decision. Now I was very much impressed by the
broad range of concerns. It wasn't just a few environmental
frenetics, if you like, I had representatives of farming
organisations and so on. So I undertook that right across
the spectrum there was a concern, a legitimate concern about
these things and we share them. So the answer to your
question is we want to see processing of our products but
I'm not going to see mills or any other processes
established in this country while I'm Prime Minister at any
price because we've got a responsibility to this and to
future generations.
O'BYRNE: Right Premier I'm sorry, that was a Freudian
slip
PM: That's alright.
O'BYRNE: Just a few
PM: Robin wouldn't mind swapping I think.
O'BYRNE: A few final, brief questions.
PM: Yes.
O'BYRNE: Bruce Lloyd has ruled out resigning today. Does
that disunity in the coalition ranks surprise you?
PM: No it doesn't. I say that for these reasons. The
National Party of course are frauds. They parade as part of
the coalition which is concerned with free enterprise, but
they are not. They are agrarian socialists. They want to
in fact have the rest of the community totally propping them
up with subsidy and with regulation which, according to
their mistaken idea, will be better for farmers.
Fortunately farmers have come to realise that that's a bad
bet supporting them because what we are proposing will mean
-6-
( PM cont): very, very considerable savings for the wheat
farmers in this country. It will be more money into the
pockets of wheat farmers. Now you have those frauds there
and you have the Liberals who are the ones who are supposed
to be the deregulators know that what we've suggested is
right. They've got no doubt. I mean they don't argue that
what we're saying is right, they've got to try and keep
alive this shotgun wedding that they have with these
agrarian frauds. Now there it's no surprise to me is my
answer to your question.
O'BYRNE: And on to one final question Prime Minister and a
more personal question.
PM: Yes.
O'BYRNE: The nation has seen the first photographs of your
wife's facelift.
PM: Yes.
O'BYRNE: At a personal level, what do you think of the
facelift?
PM: Well, let me say this. I thought before that she
looked beautiful. I didn't feel that she needed it, but
once Hazel felt that she wanted it, that was the beginning
and the end of it for me because she has an entitlement to
do what she feels is required. Now having said that, let me
say that the result is beautiful.
O'BYRNE: And do you think she's changed in any way?
PM: She looks even more beautiful and even younger than she
did before.
O'BYRNE: Thanks very much Mr Hawke.
PM: Thank you very much Tom.
ends