PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF
AUSTRALIA, 6 SEPTEMBER 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: How close to settlement do you think the pilots
dispute is now?
PM: One can't say how close it is. All one can say is that
the airlines, the Government, the ACTU are committed to
seeing that the outrageous claim of this groups of people,
this has been made outside the guidelines which is
applicable to others, will not succeed. We will continue to
do everything we can in terms of providing planes from the
RAAF, accelerating the availablility of aircraft and pilots
from overseas to assist the airlines in providing as
substantial a service to the public of Australia as is
possible. I hope that the evidence which is increasingly
becoming available that pilots are now signing up under
contracts with the two airlines will persuade their
colleagues that they should do the same. But it would be
improper for me to put some timetable on how long it will
take to see a resumption of normal services in this country.
But I repeat, let the Federation know that the determination
of the Government and the airline industry and of the trade
union movement is unaltered. This claim will not succeed.
JOURNALIST: Sir Peter Abeles said last night that some
stand downs had already taken place. Is any talk of
compensation off the agenda?
PM: Let's get it quite clear on this question of
compensation. There is no suggestion that there will be any
consideration of compensation for losses suffered by the
airlines. The only matter which will be on the agenda and
I will take it for a determination by my colleagues at an
appropriate time is whether the Government in the unique
circumstances of the airlines should provide some recompense
in respect of employees in the airlines who are not being
stood down. In regard to the tourist industry, for whom I
share an enormous concern at the losses that they are
suffering, in their case they can and are standing down
their employees. In the case of the airlines that is not a
realistic possibility. So the only matter that can be on
the agenda is the possibility of recompense for the unique
circumstances of the airlines for assistance to their
employees who cannot be stood down. Now as I say in regard
-to that-matter we will give consideration to that at the
appropriate time.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you satisfied that what is
being offered to the pilots by Sir Peter Abeles and Ansett
falls within the guidelines?
PM: Yes I am. I mean what we've witnessed in this tragic
dispute is the additional tragedy of an irrelevant, confused
opposition. The latest episode of which was the pathetic
picture of this opposition spokesman, Mr Jull, last night
getting into the media of Australia and putting out a series
of calculated misrepresentations. But that's not surprising
because the handling of themselves in this matter by the
opposition has been dispicable and deplorable. The fact is
that when this matter was before the full court of the
Industrial Relations Commission the spokesman for the
airlines made it clear at that point that when they went
into a position where they would have to have negotiations
with their individual pilots that they would make the
contract available for perusal by the Commission. That's
been done. These talks of 28.6% salary increases is an
absurdity. But as I say it fits in with the pattern of
total irrelevancy and misrepresentation which has
characterised the opposition in the whole of this matter.
JOURNALIST: the Opposition's tactic, the Halfpenny
tactic, that they now seem to have adopted.
PM: Let me say these things; I repeat here what I said in
the Parliament that last week when very serious
allegations were made against Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and
there were some exultation in Labor ranks I went out of my
way in the Caucus to say that as far as I was concerned and
this Government was concerned there was a fundamental
principle that applied and that is that any person accused
or charged is innocent until proved 4uilty. That is the
first point to make. The second point to make is that there
seems to be some belief on the part of the opposition that I
may have some brief for Mr Halfpenny. I don't think there
is anyone in the country who's had more disputes and fights
and fundamental practical and philosophical disagreements
with Mr Halfpenny than myself and that remains the case that
Mr Halfpenny as with any other individual in the community
including Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is entitled to the
benefit of that principle that if charges or accusations are
made they are innocent until proved guilty. The third point
I make is this; that the insinuations of the opposition in
this matter are beneath contempt. It is the case that Mr
Halfpenny has been associated vigorously with Victoria and
the Victorian-based consortium in representations on behalf
of that consortiuma. But the insinuation that somehow or
other if Mr Halfpenny himself has been guilty of anything
and I repeat he is innocent until proved guilty that that
has anything to do with the way in which the tender has been
awarded is beneath contempt because it involves the
presumption that a whole range of people in the Navy right
through and not only serving officers but officials have
-3-
( PM cont) been involved in some corruption. The fact is
that in all the processes there has been virtually unanimous
recommendations to the Government from serving officers,
Defence officials, Attorney-General's, Finance, that the
contract which the Government awarded is the right one. So
we just have further evidence in this matter of an
Opposition which, without any question, has in virtually
everything it has done and is doing is reaching levels of
contempt unparralled in the history of this country.
ends