Q, 11
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 29
NOVEMBER 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Over the last couple of days, Prime
Minister, there's been more talk about the possibility of
an economic statement in the early part of next year.
Previously you indicated that the Government will be
making a statement about wages principles after the talks
with the ACTU. Can you give us any indication as to
whether the Government now wants to go further than that?
PM: No I can't. I have nothing really to add on that,
Paul, to what I've said before. I just simply state the
obvious facts of history as relevant to the future. That
is that we have made decisions about statements in the
simple terms of is it necessary for stating,
articulating Government policy? We've done it when
that's been necessary and to outline any new decisions.
If, as we come up to that period, we judge it necessary
to act as we have in the past, we will do so. No such
judgement has been made at this point. I wonder, having
answered that question if I could make a general
point which I think, Paul, is relevant to the question.
This talk, as you say, that has been growing about the
desirability or the proposal or the necessity of some
economic statement, there seems to me to be in some sense
a misunderstanding the factual situation which is that
the stance, the existing stance, of Government policy is
firm and is producing the appropriate results. We've got
very, very firm fiscal policy, we've got very firm wages
policy and, obviously, we have very firm monetary policy.
I've explained that monetary policy is necessary in
conjunction with the other two arms to produce a
levelling of f of the degree of economic activity so that
we can get a more sustainable level of imports. I've
also pointed out that if you look at the composition of
imports, that we are entitled, as a nation, to be very
satisfied with the future implications of what's been
happening in that structure of imports because they are
being used to restructure Australian industry in a
significant way. I simply go to those points to say that
the Australian economic picture is basically sound,
although because of the application of a tight monetary
policy it is undoubtedly hurting some people. And that
we acknowledge and we want, as soon as it is responsible,
to be able to ease that policy off. As I've said before,
that will be done but not before we are convinced that
there has been a sufficient levelling off of activity.
So I say all that to make the point that I don't believe
that we are in a situation where existing policy is not
relevant and working.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, concede that such a
statement would give the Government a political circuit
breaker, would help the Government to regain the
political initiative in the rundown to an election?
PM: Well, let me take the last part of the question
first, Paul, about regaining the political initiative. I
don't accept that we've lost the political initiative. I
mean, let's analyse the evidence on that. I mean, you
don't need to be a political genius, I think, to read the
political situation at the moment. That is that the
Government is being hurt in significant sectors of the
electorate by the level of interest rates. I've not
attempted to disguise that fact either in the Parliament
or outside. But the remarkable thing is that in that
situation the major parties, on any analysis, are running
neck and neck in the polls and if you look at the latest
test in South Australia, I mean, everyone rushed to
judgement and said devastation federally. OK, that's
interesting because when you do the analysis of the South
Australian poll, on a federal elected basis, no loss of
seats. We would win back Adelaide, comfortably win back
Adelaide, Liz Harvey in Hawker would go down marginally
by just a few hundred votes, but I would suggest that in
a federal election if it was if she was the issue
that you'd hold that. So you could argue that not only
no loss of seats, but getting one back. In other words,
what is emerging is that we are being hurt not
suggesting there wasn't a swing of course there was,
but we are being hurt by the level of interest rates, but
the electors are showing they are not prepared to embrace
the alternative. And there is little wonder because its
policies are a prescription for economic disaster and
their leadership is entirely unconvincing. Now if we
stick to the analysis and prescription that we've got,
that is that we've got to bring down the level of
activity somewhat by the mix of tight policy that is in
place that produces the results that I think it will,
then we are going to be vindicated in terms of
steadfastness and relevance, against an alternative which
is a disaster and is being revealed by their own people
now as a disaster, that it's at least another three years
of the same level of interest rates. Of course it would
be even worse.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, when you talk about an
easing of policy, are you just talking about an easing of
monetary policy, or the other arms of policy?
PM: I was referring particularly to monetary policy.
But let me make it clear so that there can't be any
taking out of context, I'm not saying you would, that was
referred to in the context of being convinced that the
combination of the existing three arms of policy had
produced the levelling off of activity that would be
required responsibly to have that easing off of monetary
policy. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, when would you have to decide you
were going to have a February/ March statement before
Christmas, and, secondly, you seem to be implying that a
statement meant some sort of change of policy. Surely
you could have a statement which was simply reinforcing
policy and setting out future directions?
PM: There's lots of things, lots of things that you
could have in a statement. I don't know that you need a
statement to set out future directions. I'll be having
something to say about that, I think at the Press Club
next week. I don't think I need a statement in February
or March to set out new directions. I've really got
nothing, Michelle, to add to what I had to say before.
We will have that statement if it's Judged appropriate
and as to when I would make the judgement as to whether
it was appropriate, well I can't say whether that would
be in December or January.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, would you expect the various
mortgage relief schemes being promoted in Queensland to
be financed entirely within the State's finances, whoever
wins on Saturday?
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, don't you see separate State
schemes, mortgage relief schemes as being counterproductive
to you in national economic policy and
wouldn't it be better to have, if you are going to have
separate State schemes, wouldn't it be better to have an
overall national relief scheme?
PM: Well, there's only two States in which it's been an
issue. So you're not in the situation of all the States
saying it, therefore if all the States are saying it,
isn't it better to have a national scheme. This is an
issue on which, very few of them, and probably at one
with the Leader of the Opposition, take the view that
it's a matter for leaders of the States or potential
leaders of the States to make a decision on their
assessment of their State capacity to undertake a scheme
they believe they can finance, it's a matter for them to
decide. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, would you be happy to go to an
election with interest rates at the present level and how
much of a likelihood is this?
PM: Well, I can't answer the latter part of the question
because I'm not going to predict what they'll be. But
the answer to the first part of your question is obvious.
I'd prefer to go to an election with interest rates lower
than they are, I'd obviously prefer that.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what hope now for a settlement
what hope is there now for a settlement of the
pharmacists' dispute and how much damage is it doing to
the Labor Party?
PM: Taking the latter part of the question first, I
don't perceive that it's doing an enormous amount of
damage. It's not helping, obviously it would be silly to
say that. As to the first part of your question, Peter,
what chances are for the settlement, I don't think that
it looks as though there can emerge an agreed position.
What we have done in the last few days, within the
' framework of the Riordan statement and in response to
approaches that we'd had from a significant section of
the chemists was to sit down with that group and see if
there was the possibility of getting an agreed position
that we could put to the Tribunal. We reached that
position with the West Australians and they believed that
they could get support of the rest of the industry, well
I accept that they attempted in good faith to do that,
they weren't able to get it. So we will be reporting the
position to the Tribunal today and what develops
obviously is a matter that can emerge out of those
proceedings. It wouldn't be proper for me to try and
pre-empt or pre-judge what might happen there, other than
to say this. That there doesn't seem to be amongst the
executives and leaders of the pharmacy industry in the
eastern States at least, any preparedness to attempt
really to get an acceptable common position.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you think the Government
is being hurt by the pilots' dispute?
PM: No, I don't believe so. All I can say is, as you
know, I go around the country a hell of a lot, expose
myself to the people for what they've got to say and I
can honestly say to you that overwhelmingly, when this
issue is raised, overwhelmingly it is ' do not give in to
the pilots', that they, the people, understand that if
there had been an accommodation by the Government of
percent demand, that it would have been entirely
destructive. So I don't believe we are being hurt, but
let me say this further, even if I believed that we were,
I would not alter the Government's position which I
emphasise is simply this. That is that the pilots should
do what the Industrial Relations Commission is saying
they should do. Very simple, accept the three
conditions, that is lift the embargo on their members
flying, secondly, accept the decisions of the Commission,
thirdly, be prepared to abide by the guidelines. Having
done that, accepted those three conditions then apply to
be bound by the award and thirdly, if those first two
things happen, then they are in a position to argue, as
they are perfectly entitled to do if they believe the
existing award which is based on the contract is not
appropriate, then, in those circumstances, they could
argue for a variation of that award. So that's what I
believe should happen.
JOURNALIST: Are you optimistic that it will happen
PM: I can't predict on the basis of the AFAP's behaviour
to this point I wouldn't make any predictions about
what they would do. But let me say this. For the sake
of their membership I hope they do because the
indisputable fact is that the Australian airline industry
is being rebuilt, and substantially rebuilt. It's
happening on a continuous basis. In the first part of
1990 it will be back to normal operation. It regards
itself as being in a position to handle the Christmas
demand. So that is happening. The longer that the AFAP
on behalf of the members that it still has the longer
it stays out of the process of that rebuilding then the
more certain it is that they will have no place. So I do
not want now, nor have I ever wanted at any stage, to be
vindictive in regard to the AFAP or its members. At all
points I've said go back in. If you don't it's disaster.
So I'm constant in that. I say take the opportunity and
the process and the avenue which is offered by the
Industrial Relations Commission. And from the point of
view of the AFAP and its members the sooner the better.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the wider issue of
industrial relations, do you believe that there should be
an enshrinement perhaps in legislation of the right to
strike PM: I answered that question in the Parliament
yesterday. I gave a full answer in the Parliament
yesterday. If you want I'm quite happy to give it again.
I'm not avoiding it. It just seems to me a waste of
time. But I'll do it. I'll give the answer that I gave
yesterday. The point that I made in the Parliament
yesterday was quite straight forward. There is a right
to strike in this country and it's exercised. We have in
this country an industrial relations system operating
under the Industrial Relations Commission umbrella in
which almost on a daily basis around this country you'll
find some direct action. Let me put that in the context
that under this Government industrial disputes have
declined by 60% as compared to our predecessors. But
nevertheless you have a system where industrial action
can be taken, is taken. But you have a system which
provides a method of resolution for those disputes
without recourse to the civil courts. The decision that
was taken in the Supreme Court creates no precedent,
makes no new law. That's by definition. It's always
been there. Now there is the position where the union
involved, the AFAP, was warned by the trade union
movement, by the Government and by its employers that if
it went outside that system where protection was provided
and deliberately exposed itself to that possibility of
civil action then that could happen and it has. What
must be understood, it was that federation which was
seeking to destroy the very system which provides the
protection where there is industrial action. They said
no, that system where there is the protection, if people
take direct action, we are going to destroy that. We
won't have a bar of it. We're going outside of it. And
consciously may well destroy it. Now they've sought to
destroy a system and then complain about the fact that
they are being hurt by it. So nothing in that sequence
of events creates any reason for saying that we should
change what existed before.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, if the pilots did capitulate this
do you think there'll be any problem in Ansett to
deal with them?
PM: Could I just make a point. I wouldn't use the word
capitulate. I've said all along that I would not be
claiming in any outset, in any outcome of this
confrontation that's existed in the airlines. If the
pilots make that decision I won't be describing it as
capitulation or victory for us because I don't think
using language like that, that it is useful. But the
facts of course are Michelle that if the AFAP does that
then the companies being bound by the Commission have no
alternative but to be in a negotiation, conciliation,
arbitration situation. Because if those three steps were
followed, that is they accepted the three conditions and
sought to be bound by the award and were granted leave to
be bound by the award and then made an application for
variation, then what happens in the Industrial Relations
Commission if you make an application of variation
the Commission calls the parties. And the airlines are
parties. So you would have the AFAP if the Commission
makes a decision party called in, the companies are
called in. Of course they'd be there.
JOURNALIST: It would be a bit of a mess wouldn't it...
PM: How would it be a mess? They are the ones who I
just simply do not understand what you're saying. How
could it be a mess? They have said all along that theyoperate
within the Commission. That's what they've asked
for to operate
JOURNALIST: recruited a number of pilots deal
with PM: That's not a mess. The mess is not for the
airlines. How can you possibly say it's a mess for the
airlines? I mean what sort of logic leads you to that
conclusion? They are the ones that have said we operate
in the Commission. The AFAP has got their members to
resign. So the airlines have no AFAP members as a result
of the AFAP decision. Airlines about the decision
have recruited and recruited substantially. Now the
realities therefore for the AFAP is that they would be
dealing with employers who now have significantly lower
numbers of vacancies. Now how you describe that as a
mess for the airline I just really don't understand.
JOURNALIST: Do you think that the high profile that
you've taken in handling this dispute has contributed in
some way to your decline, the decline in your personal
standing in the opinion polls?
PM: How can you measure these things? I would think
perhaps it has in some quarters. I know in other
quarters that people have applauded me for my handling of
it. So I can't weight it. I guess probably some people
haven't liked it. I accept that. But as I said also in
an answer to a previous question. People don't like high
interest rates. So that probably hurt a bit. I just
don't really know what the mix is. All I can say is that
the positions and policies that have been adopted have
been adopted on the basis of what's right for the
country. I wouldn't deviate from that. I'm not going to
be chasing popularity in terms of saying well if I did
this a bit differently but it meant not doing the right
thing, I'm not in that sort of caper.
JOURNALIST: Yesterday Mr Peacock refused to give a
timetable for when his policies would lower interest
rates. He spoke about perhaps the full period of office,
three years. What's your timetable?
PM: Well I'm not going to put a day or month on it. I
simply am going to say in regard to the comparison with
Mr Peacock that he is right to say it might take three
years or more. I am right to say it would take
significantly less under us. For the simple reason that
his policies, as I have spelt out in the Parliament on a
number of occasions, inevitably mean higher interest
rates. Don't be surprised by the fact that in the last
couple of days you've had the Leader of the Opposition
and the Shadow Minister for Finance and the Shadow
Treasurer being forced into these positions. It's not
just some sort of accidental gaffe although I know that
their Queensland colleagues would gladly shoot them but
it is the result of the remorseless exposure of the
economically inevitable consequences of their announced
economic policies. Because if you you don't have to be
much advanced beyond first year economics, if that far,
to understand and I know you're well advanced past that
but you don't have to be very well advanced past first
year economics to understand that if economic matters
involve three arms of policy, as it does, and the
Opposition are getting up and saying we will have looser
fiscal policy, as they are, because it must be. I mean
if you in fact, in terms of what they're saying, have a
difference of about $ 100 million but then don't take into
account the enormous gaping hole in revenue from the
abolition of the capital gains tax, then what they do
about the $ 800 million is another matter. But inevitably
there's no analyst says that their fiscal policy won't be
looser. So if you have looser fiscal policy, if you have
looser wages policy as everyone knows follows if you
abandon the centralised wage system and say everybody go
and do an AFAP, then you inevitably have looser wages
policy. Now as I say, just first week economics will
tell you looser fiscal policy, looser wages policy, ipso
facto two things. Tighter monetary policy and rising
unemployment. So don't be surprised that these
beleaguered people who have been subjected to this
remorseless analysis of the inevitabilities have had to
concede it.
JOURNALIST: Well Mr Hawke, in the context of the easing
of monetary policy under your Government, is it possible
to have an economic statement that doesn't tighten fiscal
and wages policy?
PM: Well, all I am saying is that we are not going to be
our fiscal policy is set there and everyone knows it.
You don't have the speculations about that policy
enshrined in the Budget. So we see how that's operating.
We will be discussing wages with the ACTU as we have done
over the last seven years. Obviously we are not it
simply follows from some of the other things I've been
saying here we are not going to be acting in the area
of fiscal and wages policy in a way which would not
enable an easing of monetary policy.
JOURNALIST: Some people in the trade union movement may
have conceded they've made a mistake in 1986 when they
rejected the consumption tax. Do you think there's any
benefits in that now in the current economic climate as
long as you have trade-offs for inflation and you protect
the disadvantaged?
PM: No, a consumption tax is not on the agenda.
JOURNALIST: By negotiating with a splinter group of
pharmacists do you think the Government ran the risk of
a) worsening the divisions within pharmacy and
particularly making a dispute The very fact that the
Government's now come back to offering to take a joint
submission to the Tribunal, basically reinstating pay
rates to before the Tribunal decision. Does that
indicate to you
PM: Eh, eh, eh,
JOURNALIST: that it's time to start thinking about a
whole new system of wage structuring for pharmacy and
another avenue for
PM: Well, let's take the two parts of the question.
Firstly, did we make a mistake in having discussions with
what you've called a splinter group? It's not a splinter
group. It was the West Australians who approached me
when I was over there in Western Australia and then out
of that they came over here. They put to us that they
had been talking with the rest of the pharmacy groups,
including the Guild, and that in what they were putting
to us they believed that if we could reach an agreed
position with them that they, from the discussions they'd
had with people from within the rest of the industry,
that anything we could agree with them they would be able
to get agreement with the others. So we didn't go into
that in a sense of saying we're ignoring everyone else,
we're just dealing with West Australia. It was put to us
and I think in good faith may I say on behalf of those
West Australian people, I'm sure it was in good faith
they'd had those discussions and they believed that they
would be able to get an agreement. In the event they
couldn't. So that really is revelant to the first part
of your question. We weren't seeking to say them with no
involvement of the others. Indeed the basis of the
discussion was that they would then out of those
discussions go off and talk with the others. So I don't
see any problem about that, although I notice that some
people may be trying to beat something up out of it. But
that doesn't worry me at all. Now, as to the second part
of your question. We took the position that the $ 4.20
that was operating from November 1 and we took into
account, as a basis of seeing whether there was a
possibility of getting an agreed position to go before
the Tribunal so that the Tribunal itself from that
interim position that we would've negotiated, it wouldn't
have been a binding final position. An attempt to get an
agreed position on the basis of which the industry could
put its position fully for the duration of the inquiry.
It seemed to us that you could live with the sort of
figure that we were talking about operating from the 1st
of January. Because if you took account of say inflation
movement between the end of the year and in March 1
applied that, plus the fact that we conceived that we
could apply some part of the $ 60 million package to it,
we could get an outcome of $ 4.55 from January 1. But I
repeat, on the basis that that was in the framework if
you like of Mr Riordan's statement which was looking at
getting a basis in which everyone would be going before
the Tribunal, putting submissions and allowing the matter
to proceed. So that was in that framework only of saying
well here is an interim position that we could live with
while the Tribunal then went ahead and conducted its
inquiry. It doesn't of itself carry any implications as
to what we thought the final outcome should be. That's
the role of the Tribunal.
JOURNALIST: And you're quite happy with the system of
setting remuneration for pharmacists as it is?
PM: To say I'm quite happy with it wouldn't be the way I
would put it. I mean you say that but don't put those
words in my mouth. I mean you could hardly be happy with
a situation which has taken so long without producing an
outcome. Let me remind you that way back at the
beginning of this year we were within two votes of the
Guild of having an agreement. Had the negotiations and
the discussions and we attempted to get agreement
couldn't get it. So then we had no alternative but as a
Government to act in terms of the legislation of our
predecessors. I remind you, we didn't pass that
legislation. The previous government said that you had
to have an arm's length situation. You couldn't properly
work these things out and negotiations between the
government and the industry so they established a
tribunal. Not being able to get a negotiative position
we said alright there's the Tribunal and went to it. Now
they conducted a lengthy inquiry and came down with their
decision. Now after that, as you know, when they brought
it down, we then in talks with the Guild through Mr
Matthews, we made a joint submission to the Tribunal and
said we'll delay it for a month until 1 November to see
if there can be further negotiations. The Tribunal did
that. We attempted to have those negotiations, the Guild
S didn't cooperate and so then in those circumstances we
developed the package, the $ 60 million package. They
haven't bought that so we're back now at the Tribunal.
Now to say am I happy with all that, the answer is no.
You'd be a bit of a thorough-going blue ribbon first
class masochist to say you were happy with that.
JOURNALIST: Who do you regard, for formal purposes, as
the voice of Australian industry and how do you feel
about the change of venue to a phone booth for tonight's
dinner? PM: I woke up this morning, I hadn't been in bed long.
I was working till about I won't tell you how late but
it was very late till early this morning. I wanted to
get a bit of sleep. I was woken up by a phone call and
the first thing I see is that the body that I'm getting
black tied for tonight and it takes a fair bit to get
me black tied I might say, it's not my usual sort of
0 dress and I find out in looking at a paper this morning
that they're falling apart. So I don't know whether I
wear half a black tie or just go in a dinner suit or
what. But I hadn't heard this about a change of venue.
I mean are we going down market?
JOURNALIST: No, you're going to the phone booth
PM: We're going to a phone booth. Well.
JOURNALIST: Seriously, who do you think however, who do
you regard as the voice in this day and age of Australian
industry? PM: Well the answer to that question is there isn't a
voice. You recall it's a very interesting question.
At the summit in April of ' 83, 1 mean I was involved in
saying to the business community for God's sake get your
act together. Because obviously the Government was going
to have an effective working relationship with the ACTU.
They were quite open. I said now I want to have an
effective working relationship with the other side of
industry. Get your act together. And out of that,
directly out of the summit came the Business Council of
Australia, But of course as you know, the Business
Council of Australia is basically confined to the large
companies. Now at the other side, you have had the CAI
and may I say in the life of this Government if there's
been one organisation of employers which has been if I
can say the political voice pf employers in terms of
fairly consistently taking an anti Government political
line it's been the CAI. It seems to be according to
this morning's Press falling apart. Now let me say as
far as the metal trades industry is concerned there is a
clear voice there, you know the Metal Trades Industry
Association. They speak with authority there for that
very important section of Australian industry we have no
difficulty. In other words, when we're dealing with that
area of the Australian economy having a voice. But I
unfortunately I think you just have so many -I think
this is clear implication of your question -if you're
talking about a voice for Australian industry of
employers, there isn't one-. I think that's unfortunate.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, just going back to Rob Hadler's
question, you said fiscal policy was set. Forward
Estimates suggests that the Budget, on no change in
Government policy, the Budget deficit, the Budget surplus
would fall next year. Does this mean that you'll accept
a fall in the Budget surplus and therefore no further cut
PM: I'm not prepared to say now what the outcome is that
we will be aiming for. I mean I want to see, with this
qualification, we're obviously going to be requiring a
very, very substantial surplus. I've said and I think
Paul has probably said too, that the judgement may be at
a time when we come to consider it that we need surplus,
the same sort of dimension that we need to keep at all
for debt repayment, there's nothing there for any other
purpose. Now we're not pre-empting that sort of
position. I'm simply saying to you what I said beforehand
that at the appropriate time we'll make the
judgement as to whether there is a need for a statement
and if so, the range of matters that will be involved in
it. But I'm not simply saying at this point whether
there will be, what would be in it and what actual Budget
outcome we would be aiming for. It would be far too
early now to be saying that.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you agree that given its better
international Ansett will emerge from the airline
dispute significantly stronger financially than
Australian Airlines and what implications does this have
for funding Australian in the future?
PM: I can't draw that implication that out of the
dispute Ansett will necessarily emerge the stronger. Of
course I guess that both of them have been even before
this pilots confrontation that they would've been
making their plans for the degregulated environment that
comes next year. I'm not in a position to say who's
planned better for that. But as to the funding of
Australian, as you know those matters are under
consideration by the Government. I've got nothing to add
on that.
JOURNALIST: Is it not the case that Ansett's been able
to lease an aircraft overseas to offset some on the costs
PM: Well they've leased aircraft, so has Australian.
JOURNALIST: I mean their aircraft in the United States,
for example.
_ PM: Lease them out to
JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: Well I've seen reference to that and OK, so if
they've done that I guess that's a relative plus for
them, viz-a-viz Australian. But I would doubt very much
whether that fact of itself is going to make the
difference as to who's going to go into the deregulated
atmosphere better. I mean you've seen over the last
couple of years a very significant lift in Australian's
performance. They were down relatively and as you know
when you're talking between the two airlines, the
percentage difference in the share of the market is
reasonably minute but still identifiable in determining
who's doing better. Australian had lifted its game very
significantly in that period.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in your statement last
PM: No-one seems here to understand-
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in your Garnaut statement you
commissioned quite a lot of work. Can you give us any
indication as to when some of those decisions might
actually be taken and just how wide ranging they might in
fact be?
PM: As you know I announced some decisions on the night
of the speech. The work has been commissioned already
and I would expect some of the important decisions to be
made quite quickly. I mean I'm not going to announce the
day or the week but we are not looking at many, many
months. JOURNALIST: Does that include the tariff goal, a
decision on that. And secondly, you referred to the
airline funding decision. When would you anticipate that
being made?
-A 13
PM: On the first one, the tariff one, I certainly will
be examining that and having consultations about that.
Those processes will be underway. As to just precisely
when decisions will be taken, I can't say. But I'm
putting to you quite clearly that the work is underway
and the Minister will be having consultations as we did
before. So that process is underway. It's not helpful
to say precisely which month I would expect decisions to
be taken but we're not talking about long distance time
scales. JOURNALIST: So are we talking about December? Are you
talking about this year?
PM: I haven't got anything to add to what I said. Now
there was a second part to your question about funding.
I don't know when those decisions will be taken. We're
not under any pressure about it, don't feel under any
pressure about it.
JOURNALIST: Before the election?
PM: Well, when's the election going to be?
JOURNALIST: You said in June last year that you hoped to
resolve the issue before the election.
PM: We'll see. I just haven't had discussions with the
Minister lately about it. That will come up on the
agenda, the decision will be made when it needs to be
taken. ends
0