PRIME MINISTER
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
ALP DINNER
SYDNEY 22 AUGUST 1989
One week ago, Paul Keating brought down this Government's
seventh budget.
It was a budget designed to advance Labor's long-term vision
of a more prosperous and fair Australia.
There can hardly have been a Budget as well received across
the community as this one has been.
That's not surprising: with its massive $ 9 billion surplus
a complete turnaround from the prospective $ 9 billion
deficit we inherited when we came to office its increased
assistance for pensioners and other needy groups, its
comprehensive approach to savings through superannuation,
its renewed focus on micro-economic reform through the
creation of the Industry Commission, it's a budget that was
bound to be well received by anyone who has Australia's best
interests at heart.
It's a Budget that demonstrates again that Labor has the
strategy for long-term economic growth and sustainable
prosperity. By contrast, the last seven days have been a nightmare for
Andrew Peacock and the opposition.
First, on Budget night, there was John Hewson's predictions
that the Budget was a) an early election budget, b) would
bring on a recession and c) would be greeted adversely by
the markets.
These self-serving predictions are not being, and will not
be, borne out by events and they have been quietly dropped
from the opposition's lexicon.
Also taking a very low profile is Andrew Peacock's proposal
about inflation adjustment of interest.
This proposal earned one sentence in Andrew Peacock's Budget
reply last Thursday.
Paul Keating and I have explained the technical reasons why
such a proposal would be a disaster for Australia but Brian
Loton of BHP said it all when he said that if you want to
see indexation at work, go to Brazil.
Another highlight of the Budget reply was Peacock's apparent
heat-of-the-moment decision to drop two words from his
prepared speech.
Instead of repeating his carefully vague promise that the
Opposition would " work to ensure that" the top tax rate for
individuals is not higher than the company tax rate, what he
actually said in Parliament it's recorded in Hansard was
" 1we will ensure" that change is made.
As Paul Keating pointed out, by dropping those two words,
Andrew Peacock has wittingly or unwittingly made a fresh
commitment costing some $ 1.7 billion dollars, aimed
specifically at the most privileged members of the
community. Then on Friday was the surprise departure from Peacock's
office of his senior staffer who had engineered the mock
election campaign a departure which followed reports of
tensions between Peacock's office and Hewson's and which has
not, I understand, left John Howard entirely heartbroken.
Finally over the weekend, we saw Ian Sinclair himself like
Banquo's Ghost, shaking his gory locks in the general
direction of young Charles Blunt, who at least for the time
being has taken his place as Leader of the National Party.
Sinclair is rarely right, but he was spot on when he said
that the Opposition is not ready or fit to govern.
It was, truly, a miserable week for the opposition, and one
that eloquently put paid to Andrew's ambitions to be thought
of not as Leader of the-Opposition but as leader of the
alternative government.
God help us if that mob formed the Government of Australial
I don't want to spend too long raking over the coals of the
Peacock Budget reply. There's not much there to look at.
But I do want to draw attention to one aspect of his speech
that has come under renewed focus since he delivered it:
his industrial relations policy.
Like all Liberal policy, it is long on rhetoric and short on
detail. But he has said enough to give us the general idea:
the general idea being that he wants to turn the clock back
and give Australia a repeat dose of what it got in 1982.
It is a massive irony that Liberals should be talking about,
as they put it, " updating" the industrial relations system.
It is an irony because under the Accord that has existed
between the Federal Labor Government and the trade union
movement since 1983 Australia has enjoyed an era of
industrial relations progress and harmony that is
unparalleled in our experience.
Let me list the achievements:
1.5 million new jobs;
a rate of employment growth more than twice as
fast as the rest of the world and five times
as fast as the last Liberal Government;
this has been built on real wage restraint
exercised by the Australian workforce. But
our rapid employment growth and targeted
social security increases has actually meant
Australia's real disposable per capita income
has increased by some 8 per cent.
increased international competitiveness for the
Australian economy
a 59 per cent reduction in industrial disputes
a new era of workplace reforms, encompassing the
truly historic changes represented by the process
of award restructuring which will deliver real and
lasting productivity improvements for the benefit
of all Australians
a stable framework within which strategies for the
improvement of living standards can be dealt with
in totality instead of the law of the jungle where the
stronger uhions get big wage increases and the
weaker get left behind, centralised wage
fixing produces fairer overall wages outcomes;
especially when, as happened this year, wage
restraint is achieved as a trade-off with
substantial tax cuts and social justice
improvements under the Accord processes, paying wage
increases in the form of superannuation, or
linking wage increases with improvements in
productivity, yields real benefit to
individuals and to the economy.
The effect of all this is that where, in the past, the
overheating of the Australian economy led to wage break-outs
that broke the back of the economy and hurt everyone, this
time we are containing wage increases so that the increased
economic activity produces new investment, not
self-defeating inflationary wage rises.
How appropriate it is for a Labor Party so proud of its
historic links with the trade union movement, that the
Accord has been at the heart of all the achievements of this
Labor Government.
And how predictable it is that the opposition should be
seeking to undo this central achievement.
Listening to Andrew Peacock the other night was like going
into a time warp.
It proved the Liberals have learned nothing from their time
in opposition.
I said in Perth recently that, more deeply than anything
else, the Liberals resent the fact that this Government has
built a stable, constructive relationship with the trade
union movement through the Accord.
They resent it they abhor it because it represents an
achievement that is utterly beyond their grasp, and a view
of society that is utterly outside the scope of their
blinkered reliance on confrontation and division.
In an era when centralised wage fixation has been absolutely
critical to the overall improvement in the Australian
economy, they want to get rid of the Accord, and get rid of
the principle that sectoral claims should be assessed in the
broader context of what's good for the nation.
Andrew Peacock talks in code words: " flexibility", " special
circumstances", " the minimum of outside interference"
If you decode his industrial relations policy, what you get
is a simple message about wage increases. The message is:
let them rip!
If you want an example 6f what that policy means in practice
you have to look no further than the mayhem being caused by
the pilots with their completely irresponsible claims for a
per cent increase.
The pilots have graphically demonstrated what Andrew Peacock
means by free bargaining between employee and employer.
It has worked well enough for them in the past.
But things are different now.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have spoken firstly about these important economic
matters. Now I want to go onto another issue that has
rightly been placed high on the national and global agenda.
I refer, of course, to the environment.
For some time now a debate has been going on about the
ranking that should be given to the economy vis-a-vis the
environment in the setting of government priorities. I
note, for instance, that Andrew Peacock has pledged economy
before ecology.
I have always considered this to be spurious debate. The
reality is that we can only have economically sustainable
development if that development is environmentally
sustainable.
My Environment Statement, launched last month, formally
embraced the concept of ecologically sustainable development
though in Government we have consistently practised it,
with our spectacular record of job creation coupled with our
decisions on the Franklin Dam, Kakadu, the Daintree, the
Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and the Wesley Vale pulp
mill, to name just a few.
I need not repeat here the many new undertakings given by my
Government in the Environment Statement. They are well
known and have been well received for what they are an
integrated set of commitments which provide further impetus
to the Government's program for protecting and repairing the
environment. I intend to issue a progress report on the Environment
Statement in a few months from now, by which time I expect
most of the new programs announced in the Statement to be
well and truly up and running or at least the preparatory
work to be completed.
But in the short time since the launch of the Environment
Statement there have been some significant new developments
that I want to report to you.
The first is the contemptuous statement of the NSW Natural
Resources Minister, Mr eausley, on 27 July that when the
present studies into the South East Forest National Estate
area are completed " it will re-grow." Asked whether this
meant those forests would be logged, Mr Causley replied
" Yes".
This is nothing less than a blatant breach of faith by the
Government in the process that had been painstakingly
negotiated by my minister for Resources, Peter Cook. By
indicating that the South East National Estate Forests will
be logged regardless of the findings of the agreed
biological studies and the studies into prudent and feasible
alternatives, the NSW Liberal/ National Party Government is
demonstrating yet again its disdain for environmental
concerns in this State.
And I can tell you, we won't cop it.
I
If the State Government doesn't co-operate fully in the
biological studies and in a full examination of alternatives
to logging the South East National Estate Forests, my
Government will bring down the full weight of its
constitutional powers including the corporations power
to achieve a solution.
And we will not allow the legitimate interests of workers in
the region to be jeopardised by a confrontationist State
Government a Government which seems more intent on using
workers as pawns in a political power play than in looking
after their long-term interests. My Government is committe~ d
to providing a sustainable future for those workers and
their families, one based on environmentally sound and
efficient forest management.
That same urge to develop at any cost is evident in the
Liberal/ National Party drive to put a high-rise development
on just about every bit of coastline in this State. The
newly-established Resource Assessment Commission will be
inquiring into coastal development in this country. With
the benefit of its reports, the Federal Labor Government
will be trying to put some sanity back into decision-making
processes on the use of Australia's coastline. I have
already indicated publicly that my Government would use its
powers, including the corporations power, to influence
coastal development in this country and I reaffirm that
commitment tonight.
The behaviour of the Liberal/ National Party Government in
this State raises the whole issue of constitutional powers.
Andrew Peacock has indicated time and again that a Federal
Coalition Government would not override the States. The
best a Federal Liberal/ National Party Government could do on
the environment therefore is the worst any State could do
and given the performance of this State Government, that's
pretty awful.
My Government will not abrogate its environmental
responsibilities to the Greiners, to the Aherns we have
overridden the States before and we will do it again as
necessary. The Federal Opposition won't support us on a referendum for
increased Commonwealth powers on the environment. They
won't override the States. Their latest environment policy
millennium Milestones II ( sounds like the remake of a bad
movie) says that they'd deal with the pressing
environmental problems confronting this country by holding a
national doorknock to raise funds. That's the extent of
their commitment to the environment a national doorknockl
only Labor Governments Federal and State have the
interest, the competence and the will required to protect
the environment. In Canberra we demonstrate our commitment
virtually on a daily basis. Just last Friday I concluded a
very important agreement with French Prime Minister Rocard
for Australia and France to promote amongst other Antarctic
Treaty countries the establishment of Antarctica as a
wilderness reserve, free from mining. We will not relent in
our determination to protect Antarctica, the world's last
great wilderness.
A further matter which my Government has viewed with grave
concern is the slaughter of the African elephant by poachers
involved in illegal ivory trade. In my Environment
Statement I announced that the Australian Government would
be seeking an international prohibition on trade in ivory,
except antique ivory, at the next meeting of the
international convention on trade in endangered species, in
October. Three weeks ago I wrote to President Moi of
Kenya to convey my Government's appreciation of his action
in destroying a very valuable collection of illegally
obtained ivory tusks.
And tonight I announce in support of those countries, such
as Kenya, which are trying to protect the African elephant,
that my Government is ( with the exception of antique
products) banning the importation of ivory into Australia.
In Bob Carr, Graham Richardson and myself you have people
dedicated to the protection of the environment. The
Australian Labor Party expects nothing less. The Liberal
and National Parties expect nothing at all and get it. The
contrast with Labor could not be starker; the environmental
consequences of a Federal Liberal/ National Party Government
could not be more devastating.
Labor's economic and environmental policies will see us
returned at the next Federal election and we look forward to
working with our State Labor colleagues here in New South
Wales upon their return to government to boost the NSW
economy and restore and protect the natural heritage of this
great State.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I said at the outset of my comments tonight that we have now
brought down seven budgets.
In 1982, the then Treasurer John Howard brought down the
Liberals, seventh Budget.
It was their last.
But our seventh Budget won't be our last.
It was their last because it was a Budget that looked only
to the next election, and that failed to grasp the long-term
issues facing the economy.
S. V
8.
Ours won't be our last because we are looking beyond the
election, and settting in place the elements of our
continuing strategy for our next term of office and, if
you like, beyond.
I want to reaffirm tonight as I have throughout the past
week our utmost commitment to continue, with energy and
determination, the great task of reform on which we have
embarked. That is a task whose successful completion will, I believe,
be Labor's best guarantee of continued electoral success
into the 1990s and Australia's best guarantee of greater
prosperity and fairness.