F PRIME MINISTER
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, WREST POINT CASINO,
HOBART, 19 NOVEMBER 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST; Prime Minister on that theme, a year or so ago
you expressed a wish sometime to go to Antarctica. It didn't
turn out to be practical at that time. Would you hope that
you might be able to do that sometime in the near future?
PM: Very much so. I deeply desire to go down there. I must
say that it was further fired last night. My satellite
hook-up with my very dear friend, Jacques Cousteau, who I
invited to come to Australia, and may I say to Tasmanians as
part of the bait, if I can put it that way, I invited him to
come and sample the beautiful food of Tasmania, and he
responded fervently. so Jacques will be coming here next
year and in responding to my invitation he said can we go to
the Antarctic. I said it would be marvellous if we could do
that. So it would be marvellous to go there and I couldn't
think of anything more exciting than going there with Jacques
Cousteau. JOURNALIST: There will be flights next year for the first
time
FM: I'm not unaware of certain developments that are being
looked at and if we
JOURNALISTs inaudible
PM: No, no. But all things are being considered.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on-a national matter
PM: These are national matters. You have a nation, a very
important part of the nation.
JOURNALIST: The Opposition Treasury spokesman speaking in
M11jvuLaaw yuftLvLJay, bald Lhw Oppofl. JIt im
expecting a dirty election campaign
-2-
PM: Well, I mean they'd know about this, they are the
experts, they are the one's who do these sorts of things. so
that's what they feel that they are going to be about, OK, I
think that that is of course, a defensive mechanism that's
being developed. You see Opposition's in a very difficult
condition about what will be a major thrust for this
campaign. That is the stark and deep gulf between the two
Parties, the Liberals and ourselves. on the fundamental
iscue of the financing of Government expenditures I rerer to
the fact that Dr Howson is proponing the proposition that it
is ' a fmlr AuRtralia in which you abolish your capital gains
tax and give back billions of dollars to the wealthy. He
knows that his Federal President, Mr John kaliott, typifies
in the Australian mind what this is all about. He knows that
we will be attacking with all the vigour at our command, the
fact that it is morally repugnant and economically insane to
take billions of dollars out of the public revenue and give
it back to the likes of Elliott. Now we will be remorseless
and relentless in attacking that issue. This would represent
in the history of this country the most massive
redistribution of income from the poor and the middle income
Australia to the wealthy few. one of the most massive that's
happened in any western society. Now in an attempt to try
and divert attention from that fact, which is increasingly
becoming recognised by the Australian people, is going to be
this attempt to say we're attacking John Elliott. Nov as far
ao I'm conoad, UD I've said, John ulliott reprenents,
typifies if you like, what is, as I say, socially obnoxious
and economically insane in this proposal. If Dr Hewson
thinks that he's got any chance of diverting attontion from
the full onslaught not merely of the Labor Party but of
many, many people in this counltry, many orqanisations on this
perversion of a policy of his, then he's mistaken. He may
also, I suggest, examine his own statements on this issue.
What has happened to Dr Hewson to divert him from the purity
of his approach as an academic economist before he became
influenced by the forces behind the Liberal Party. Because
before he became so influenced by the forces within and
behind the Liberal Party he expressed the view that there
should be attacks upon a capital gain. That was his
position. But now he gets into the operations of the Liberal
Party and suddenly the clear understanding of the objective
economist is warped by all the forces which form the bins,
the prejudice and the privilege which is the Liberal Party in
this country.
JOURNALIST: Do you think this is the first time that..
policy..
-3-
PM: No, simply not. I have always been amused by the
inadequacy of the analysis not only in the media, the
professional media but by a number of commentators. it was
my task on Friday night in delivering the Evati Memorial
lecture to spell out some of the things which should've been
more obvious to people in this country before but which
haven't been too obvious. I recommend you read the speech,
it's an excellent speech, well written, it was also well
delivered, and it will show to you than any suggestion that
there is not a vast gulf between the-two Parties is just a
nonsense. There couldn't be a wider gulf. One of the points
that I made then and it's worth I think relating it back
hA, one of the pointA T made about education, kidR in the
scnooi. Tney naa, Detore we came to orrice, Y years in
office. in that whole period of seven years what was their
magnificent achievement in terms of education and increasing
the retention rate in schools in Australia? Magnificent
achievement of lifting it by 21, it's gone from 34% to 361 of
the kids staying on In school. They walked out of office
after 7 years and in lifting it 2 points to 36% which was
about the worst retention rate in the western world. why
didn'* t they have the money to spend on education? For
instance, it was because they allowed the Elliotts of this
world to have a situation where through the absence of a
capital gains tax, money which should've been coming into the
public coffers to be spent on the education of our kids was
lining the pockets of the wealthy. Nov we said that's not
the sort of society that Australia ought to be or under Labor
is going to be. So what's been our achievement? We have
reformed the tax system so that we get now the billions of
dollars coming into the public coffers which should've been
coming. Now kids are now staying. of course it's not 361
of our kids, it's now 60%. Up 2 percentage points in 7 years
under them, from 34% to 36. Under us from 36 to 60 and we've
been able to do that by more than doubling the amounts or
education allowances at secondary school level, going into
the homes of the kids of the low and the low to middle income
families. Now that's what this election is about and never
forget it. What sort of Australia is it going to be? Is it
going to be one where you have the worst retention rates in
the world, where you don't get from those with a capacity to
pay the money to keep and build your kids in shcools? That's
what it's about. -Or are you going to go back to taking the
billions of dollars away which have enabled you to massively
build your education system and give those billions of
dollars to the Elliotts of this world? Now if or Howson
thinks that the exposition of those issues is dirty politics
then he can think it. That's the exposition of what the
facts are about the alternatives facing the Australian
community as we go up to the next election.
-4-
JOURNALIST: Is there a danger though that constantly
referring to John Elliott
PM; Well have you heard my exposition? i'm not you've
got the facts. I'm saying that they have this man as their
President. This man openly boasts, openly, I didn't put the
words in his mouth. He openly boasts that he's been involved
in the development of their policies and he will be a massive
beneficiary, he would be a massive beneficiary of their
policies. Now I'm simply saying that we didn't chose to
elect John Elliott as the President of-the Liberal Party. We
didn't chose to make the decision that he would be involved
in the formation of that. That's their decision and it is
inevitable that Elliott's name will be associated. But if
they had Joe Blow as their President, Joe S1ow, which they
don't, but if they had Joe Blow the policy would still be as
objectionable. I can assure you my concentration as Prime
Minister will be as it has been here. I mean I mention
Elliott but my concentration is upnn the n-oeially obnoxious-_-
and economically insane nature of their policies. Whether
they keep Elliott as their President or not, that's what the
attack will continue to be.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, can I change the subject just
for the moment to tourism. some can say that when airline
deregulation takes effect in 12 months time, that Tasmania
actually will get air services, dearer fares and general
service won't be as good. Do you share that view? And if
that does occur, would you help Tasmania if that appears to
be the case?
PM: I thank you for the question. I don't accept that to be
the case. Let me say that in these current circumstances, as
I've said in meeting vith the representatives of the
Tasmanian tourist induit~ y lat. : aihL, that I've
personally pressed the two airlines to do as much as they
possibly could to help Tasmania. So I'm very conscious of
the aviation needs of this State. I don't believe that the
deregulation of the system will have that effect and l'm
prepared to say to you that we'll monitor that very closely.
This is entirely hypothetical; if it were to be seen that
there was that impact then that's something we'd have to do
something about.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you confirmed the $ 2.2M4 for the
Tasmanian mariceting campaign and the taxation relief. Apart
from your yesterday, can Tasmania still hope for further
Federal Government assistance?
PM: Well let me, I mean you haven't been exhaustive in the
way in Tasmania will benefit, I mean out of that $ 30M4
package, which I might remind you it's been said by the
tourist industry to meet what they regarded as reasonable.
Out of that Tasmania will benefit from all components. of
the $ 18.5X on the international advertising Tasmania of
course, will be included, as it properly ought to be in the
attractions of Australia, for overseas to Australia will get
the benefit of the impact of that $ 1. m You will also get
the benefit of the impact of the $ 5M4 what we call Australian
generic advertising which will be directed towards getting
Australians to travel within Australia, to take their
holidays in Australia. obviously a lot of mainland
Australians in responding to that $ 5M4 campaign will come to
Tasmania. You have a Prime Minister who sets the lead. At
the end of the year I come down here for my break, that's the
fi-tst thing I do. So that's another $ 5M4 worth you just got.
Now you then get the so you get the benefit of those
three components and as to how that $ 2.2M of course will
consult You get the benefit of the taxation
understanding that we have. Now I think Tasmania is going to
do very well out of it. I mean what we've got to remember
out of these things, of course I acknowlege and have at all
times the difficulties that have been involved as a result of
the pilots initial strike action and then their resignation.
I mean itIG been disastrous for some and extremely unheipful
to tho economy generally. BuL Ljae worst of it, witnout any
question, is over and the airlines are returning towards full
services. What we will have then as we go into 1990 is we
will have an airline industry which is going to be
significantly more efficient than it was before, very much
more efficient. Which will mean that airline fare structure
will be at lower level as a result of the restructuring than
they would otherwise have been and this is going to be of
continuing benefit to the tourism industry and the basic
attractions of Tasmania remain unaltered. So I think that
when you put that against what would've happened if you'd had
a weak government I ke the opposition who said give into the
pilots, you would've had a destruction of the Australian
economy, you would've had a destruction or the tourismindustry.
So there have been problems and very, very real
problems. But out of it is going to come a better airline
industry and an economy which is going to continue to thrive.
JOURNALIST." Mr Hawke, you made reference yesterday in
relation to a fisheries agreement with the Soviet Union, a
parallel commodities agreement. I'm just wondering some
more detail about that commodities
-6-
PM: NOW I can just quickly give you the backgrounmd and then
some idea of where were going. NOW for the benefit of
others, the Soviet's were keen on having a fisheries
agreement with Australia. We were keen enough to have that
but we also are keen to have a commodities agreement. So the
time that's been taken to conclude the fisheries agreement
has been a function not so much of the intrinsic problems in
that area but of ensuring that we get out of the commodities
agreement the benefits that we think are appropriate, Now
the fisheries agreement in that regard has been virtually
completed. we don't think that we're far away now from
getting agreement on the other. so I would think that within
a very, very short time we should have agreement which
cover fisheries, In that respect, I made it quite clear of
course, that Hobart would be a preferred port and I think
that you can be expecting, Premier, some announcement
in that area before too long. I understand that the
Tasmanian authorities have been having some discussions which
is appropriate that they should do and of course when the
agreements at the Comonwealth/ Soviet level are finalised
then the will come. But it's one of those things where
we're not very far away.
ends