PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE SHERATON HOTELP DRISBANK
9 MARCH 1990
A 05 PROOF ONLY
JO~ MALST Wr Hawkesp do you endorse the comments made
by Mr Kelty the other day calling for workers to
retalliate by displaying hatred to the coalition and
employes?
PK: Hatred is not, as I think you probably know from my
background, something which is part of my makeup. I
don't like the concept of hatred and I attempt not to
practice it. I understand what Kr xiety van saying, he
was relating the present proposdd policies of the
Opposition to what has happend in the past. He
recognise. so that it in the workers of Autralia and their
tamlies# those dependant upon them, who ' ye paid a heavy
price in the past, Paul. And what Kr Keity fear. and
properly fears in a revisiting upon the ordinary people
of Australia of the tragedy of the past. I don't want to
take a great deal of time in revisiting the statistics
upon you but they are ver firmly in your mind as to what
happened when those polices were imposed before. The
worst recession in the 50 years and that meant in the 12
months before we came to office another quarter of a
million Australians thrown out on to the unemployment
bcrapheap. And Kr iKelty knows from excpeience, he also
knows from the fact that hes spent so much of his time
in the last two years knocking back wage increases that
employers have wanted to imnpose because he knows that
that would destroy the economy. so he's saying the
sufferers from the policies, industrial relations wages
policiets, of the opposition would be ordinary working men
and wn and their kids. And he says that in hateful.-
Now I wouldn't ask the workers of this country to indulge
in hatred because it is not part of my makeup and I don't
think it real. ly is part of Mr Kelty's, but I think he is
asking them to detest those policies and what they must
mean JOUPJIALITz will you talk to him and ask him to tone
down his language?
PK2 I don't know about asking his to tone down his
language. If I had any discussion with him, quite
any rate, that I have a different view of langage On
this issue, but I totally understand the concern that he
has and I totally understand, Paul, the concern that
Australian workers ought to have.
JOURNALIST&. Prime Minister, on the child care
PM: Sol I think that's not accurate because, firstly if
you take those, that part of the assessment that deals
with the word as co-operation vith the States, they have
up to this point co-operated and I have no reason to
assume that they would not. We have had no indication
that they wouldn't co-operate in the future an they have
in the past. And let ne SKy I'm sure that the Labor
Premier. would have commitment to cooperation in this
regard and It would be very strange if I& r Greinier should
not. Kr Greiner has been remarkably silento I must say,
in regard to what it means for NWW if his Federal
colleagues were to come in it would mean $ 120X of
funds to NOW. There is no doubt that from the point of
view of SS8W which side their bread is buttered on as far
as this election is concerned. On the 28,000, all I can
say is that those are the best estimates of what the
response would be given the significant increase in
effective demand which is associated with our policies.
What you have got to understand in that in term of the
supply of places it is a function in part of the level of
effective demand. And what we are doing in the area of
improved fee relief, which is very substantial and which
I think You don't question, will mean that there will be
a significant increase in effective demd. And that's#
all I am say, in the best estimate made by responsible
people on the sort of response there will be.
JOURNALIST: Xr Hawks, operational subsidies your
package, do you guarantee now to maintain at the
level they are at the moment?
PH: Vll, the proposals that have been drawn up have
been drawn up on the basis of continuation of the
existing arrangements.
JOURNALIST: Does that mean they will continue for the
@@ a
PM: That is the position that has been put, but the
costing. that have been arrived at have been clearly put,
they come to the best part of some 400 million and the
basis of operation in the future will, as I understand
it, be on the smem situation as it has been in the past.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the Labor policy previously has
not beew in support of commercial centres, why do you
change and do you think In retrospect that that policy
was wrong?
PH: Wlle I think we needed to concentrate our resources
in the first Instance on increasing the support for
community-based care, but then as we have gone on and we
have done that, and remember what these sort of figures
are, we will under the additions we have already been
made and under the committed program in ' 92 as t is
there'll be a more than trebling of those places. On the
analysis which has now been undertaken it seems
appropriate that assistance should also be given in the
commroial sector and this is now a well-rounded program
with a very very significant increase in expenditure on
the part of the Commonwealth. We'd certainly justify the
description that I have made, that this has been the
greatest expansion in child care facilities in the
history of this country. Let ae make the point that this
was an agreed position. There has been some attempt to
suggest that there may have been some basic division
amongst my Ministers but let me say that this is a
rounded and balanced approach which has met with the
approval of the Cabinet as a whole.
JOURNALIST: But do you concede it's a major shift in
S policy area?
PMl Well, it is a development, it is a development in
policy. If we operated on the basis that we would have
exactly the same policy stance in year 10 of this
Government, in the fourth Government, as we had in year
one it would be a very peculiar sort of Government. You
deal with the first immediate priorities and then you
expand your program. I mean, for instance, let's look at
the broader thrust of macro-economic policy. It was
appropriate, as soon as we came to Government, to give
the economy a and then you have the, that is by
Government's policy in its decisions, because you had as
I say the worst recession in 50 years. It was
appropriate in those circumstances to give the economy a
lift. But as the economy got going we then moved in to
very substantial cut-backs in real terms in Government
outlays. Now that is the mark of intelligent and sound
government, that you develop your policies according to
the needs and the developing needs of the society. Now
in regard to child care we committed ourselves at the
beginning for using relatively limited resources,
expansion in the community-based centres and now we
believe that with a combination of our additional
expenditures there and the to effective demand that
was associated with fee relief that there will also be an
expansion of places in the commercial sector.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PN: I think that there is a sufficient flexibility in,
both in the platform and in the attitudes of the Party,
to enable this to be done. I think it will be welcomed
generally within the Party and within the community.
JOURIALIST: Prime Minister, how do you respond to
criticism this morning that the policy speech
PM: I must say that I was anuaed by those observations,
Peter, amused beoause for reasons best known to the
coentators who have mad those observations, they seea
to think that the Prime Minister and his Ministers have
only exposed the Government's proposed policies for the
next tern yesterday here in my policy speech. They
conveniently overlooked two things. Firstly, that on 22
February I delivered in Sydney a most detailed set of
proposals for micro-economic reform in the fourth term.
Now for some of these oommentators we may as well not
have spoken, we may as well not have delivered that
address. The program for nicro-economic reform for the
fourth term wasn't delivered because I didn't do it
yesterday. I mean, what short memories some people have.
And let as make the point about that delivery on 22
February, two points. Firstly, I put it against the
background of the still unanswered challenge, and I
repeat it, I am still waiting to hear from Mr Peacock or
any spokesperson for the Conservatives, an answer to the
challenge I made in Deceaber at the National Press Club
and repated elsewhere, where I said that there has been
no period in Australia's peacetime history to match, to
come within a bull's roar of the record of massive microeconomic
reform that has been initiated under my
Governmnt. And we still have a thundering silence from
the conservatives to that challenge. Answer, why,
because they know it is impossible to answer. In the
of the 33 years since ' 49 when I caae to office, for
of those 33 years of Conservatives were in office. They
did nothing in terms of aicro-economic reform of any
significance. And in seven years we have very
significantly turned round the structure, the attitudes
in the institutions of this country, but we have not been
satisfied in this election campaign to rest upon that
performance, a performance unMatched in the 30 years of
Conservative Government. As I say, on 22 February I laid
down the ten point program. I remind you of it, it went
to aviation, telecommunications, industry policy,
shipping, the waterfront, electricity generation,
railways, export of services, international trade,
education and the labour market. Nov each one of those
areas detailed our program and our policies for the next
tera. Now secondly, in answer to the question that was
22nd February in regards to macro-economic policy it
was quite clearly laid down by my friend and colleague,
Paul leating, in his statement at the beginning of the
campaign where he laid out our wages, tax, superannuation
proposals for the fourth term. There you had a
continuation of the basic macro-economic framework of the
past. And what has that produced? You know what it has
produced. It has produced a 12.2% reduction in real nonfara
unit labour costs, it has produced a rate, an
average annual rate of employment growth of 3.5% which is
precisely five times the 0.7% employment growth of our
predecessors. It has given an indication of the
continuation of our fiscal responsibility which has seen
as I have said a $ 30 billion turnaround in demand by the
public sector upon the resources of the community, and
I
importantly, importantly, particularly for those
cc~ mntaorswho nothing, Xr ] iawke said nothing
yesterday about our debt probim. Importantly it laid
out the superannuation pol icy for the future, a policy
Which is going to mean a direct attack upon the question
of mavings, a reduction of reliance on overseas eband
a policy which is directly relevant to dealing with the
probls of inflation. So that in what I may to those
woC say Mr Hawks yesterday didn't deal with the problems
of mioro-econonic refoarm and macro-econanic policy. For
God's, maer let the analysts and the commentators just
4remember that there isn,' t only one day of the campaign
an good a day as it warn.
JOG3ALI! PzJust on that 22 February speeche Mr Hawks
MI: Yes.
JOURNALIST: *. the major criticism the Governmen
made by* economic adjustment in the next term if the
Governments re-elected compared to the last term.* Can
you say whether the pace of adjustment in the next team
will be the ameo, faster or slower?
IN: I think it would be faster, I say it Paul not
because it's the easy answer and perhaps the me~ t
convenient and the most politically advantageous. But
there is a simple truth about change and that is it's the
hardest thing about change is the first step, to get
people to face up to the realities of a new, more
challenging environment.* Of course, let me for instance
give you an example of that Paul.' I can recall that
when, in the earlier parts of our Government, we started
to talkC about the need for award restructuring. There
VUS enormous hesitation. Indeed I think it dosen' 4t
overetate the came to say antagonism in certain areas of
the trade union movement. And it took us a good deal of
time because we believe in consultation and not
confrontation to get the concept accepted in the trade
union movemt, that if they were really going to
discharge their obligations to their members they had to
bree predtodiscard outdated work practices and
attitue= s trganisation in the workplace. That took
time. But now those processes, as you know, are strongly
underway, and indeed, if I had to nominate one of the
sources Of excitement of the Prime Ministership, it has
been now for instance to go into wrklacesn and one the
enthusiasm with which workes and their organisations are
embracing these changes. To be precise, one of the most
exciting experience. I've had in the last few months is
to gio into the steelworkcs in Newcatle and to have
management confessing its sins of the past and workers
doing it. Management saying to Me, the exact phrase that
management used to me, You know Mr Hawke, until. these
changes cam. about under your ovurnment, our attitude
warn that we asked workers to leave their brains at the
gate. He said that was absurd. And unionists were there
working with management saying we've got to change these
practices, we've got to do ths more effectively. SO
that's the reason Paul why 1 that it'. a going to be
faster in these next three years becaus e vs have Overcome
to much a onsiderable extent soeof the attitudinial
barriers of change.
-JOURN& IAIW$ VT utt how can you be so confident,
prtcuIlarly about award restructuring when, this morn ing
IN: Year love read it.
JOALIS~ s The Netal Trades Federation
PH: I could, it we had time and I know we haven't, I
could take you Paul -and you would be amongst them I
could take you to the doommaying statements of the last
seVen years. The Accord was dead, the whole thing was
going to blow up. I could give you a list including
se by Paul Kel, sateet We'd need a pole vault
to get over the pile of what was going to happen to the
Accord. N ow many times ha. the Accord been dead..., the
burial services conducted with appropriate solemnity by
the oa eru in the media. But let me say this. The
Accord in vibrantly alive, well and operating. it
Operates in an env ironment of people who are going to try
and doc the best they can for the people. They will make
threats, they ' 11 make statements, but I'll tell you this,
the Accord wvill live. it's again going to survive the
doomsaYers. I believe that the discussions will go on in
the days ahead and Itu confident that the Accord In
general and in the metal trades in particular will
Survive. You know, I'm a, I'm a punter I haven't got
much time to do it -but could I give you this advice.
When you're punting, it's a good idea to look at the form
of the runners and & lno, if you're inclined to take
account of tipsters, to have a look at their record too.
And I'll tell you what in the race that's on for
Australia's future, the horse called the Accord has got
an outstanding record of achievement. I've told you
about it in part but let me just add a bit to it. Rate
Of employment growth five time faster than before: a
reduction in the level of industrial disputes; business
intvestment, the highest level on recordl profits the
profit shAe picked up from the 11.2% in ' 82 to the
highest points on record. go the horse called the Accord
has got good form and the tipsers who've tipped against
the Accord have done their dough.
JOWRNALIST: ( inaudible)
PH: I don't think it will be necessary for ae to get
invo3lved. It May be that I would have a discussion with
Ur Kelty if You know, if love got the tim. it may
happen. If I regarded it as desirable or necessary I
would do it. Because one of the great things, one of the
great features about th~ is Government of course has been
that we treat the representatives Of working men and
wamen in this country as people who should be talked with
and not confronted. And if I believed that it was
helpful to have a discussion, if I thought that things
were going a bit off the rails, I'd be prepared to do it.
JOURNALIST: no frills launch Andrew Peacock?
PH: Well, I mean what I say when I have said from the
beginning and indeed really before we got into this
election campaign that I regard it as the most important
electionl sine 1949. It's not rhetoric. I deeply
believe it because I think it will shape the sort of
country that we take into the 21st century. And
believing that and the seriousness of this matter I, with
my colleagues,, felt that we should have a very serious
launch.* The introduction, were not extriagentg but I
think they were appropriate, a magnificent singing of the
national anthem by Claire and two introductions by the
Sheffield Shield contenders and then the speech. Now it
seemed to me that that warn the appropriate way of doing
it. It will be for the people to judge, Bob, as to
whether they want more razzamataz But I believe that in
that simple uncomplicated presentation I was best able to
put before the people of Australia the starkness of the
choice they've got to make. I wouldn't have wanted to do
it any other way.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: In regard to the first question I have got an
idea but I don't think it's fair to all my colleagues to
start flagging who would take Lionel Bowen's position.
Let me simply say that it will be filled by a person of
competence and commitment and proven track record.* Nov
you can all start guessing.
JOURNALIST: Nichael Duffy.
PH: But I have no comment. An to the second, I believe
that with the Australian business community that what we
need in a system where businesses wherever they are in
Australia arm going to know what the law is and what the
practices are. I personally would prefer a situation
where the, if there in Constitutional doubt that all the
States would the relevant powers to the Commonwealth.
And this in obviously an area we've got to have some
serious of discussions vith the States. But it just
se ems; to so that we do pay a fairly high price in this
country for the fact of federation. I'm not trying to
undo that, that is a fact of life. it does soom to so
that it's fairly intelligent that wherever the facts of
the federal system pose manifest probl s, then if we
politicians are really concerned about the best interests
of the country we could tackle them. For example, that's
what's mtivated se in the area of roads. I mean, that's
why I've tried to use $ 120 million to fix that in the
blackspot program. I've tried to use that as a basis for
getting accession of agreement from the States to uniforn
standards.* That's wh~ we got lamt year the famous Hobart
declaration on eduenyon where, great credit to John
Dawkcins for then initiative and for the State Minister who
responded 1positively It's a very interesting statistic
that,'. buried away in the material which was distributed
yesterdays that some# each year, I think, there's some
70,000 Australian children moved interstate. Now it just
is a tragedy inamy judgmnt that you can have a problem
for all those famlies because of different educational
standards and criteria and curricula in the States. So
that's what we're trying to do in every area.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I would want that to happen. We obviously had to
look at, in part, at the implications of the Nigh Court
decision and then that goes to one part of the area which
is, am you'll appreciate, the actual process of
incorporation. But I would hope that as soon an we are
re-elected that the new Attorney-General will enter into
O discussions with the relevant ministers of the States to
and see if we can get a mature Australian answer to
JOURNALIST: z ( inaudible)
PK: I don't believe that I run a risk of losing that
because that involves the unstated premise that the
Australian electors are there waiting to be played as a
bunch of suckers. The fundamental truth of this
election, as we now get to the point where we're just
about a fortnight away from polling day, is this, that my
opponents have treated the Australian electorate as
people lacking in intelligence, that they can make a
series of unfunded promises, including in the area that
you're talking about,, about three quarters of a billion
dollars and say we'll give you this# we'll spend this
money, but say nothing, nothing, refuse to answer
questions, dodge your questions as to how they're going
tpay for it. Now if you believe that, and I were to
believe that, then perhaps the people perhaps if I
were that desperate to hold onto office, and my I say to
ruin this country, perhaps I should say wall what was the
their offer? Billion? Yes, . better up that I'll1 make
it because the mugs will buy that, they'll like a
billion unfunded promise better than they'll like the $ 1
billion dollar unfunded promise. And so the difference
is I and my colleagues have a different view of the
Australian electorate. I recognise that roads are an
issue of concern. we've addressed it, but we've
addressed in a funded way. What I = m offering are two
things, two things. The blackipots program which is
already there and in the campaign this additional $ 100
million a year funded and directed to identifiable areas
of need. That', the difference. I an not in this next
fortnight going to change my judgement about the
Australian electorate, because I would need to share the
Judgement of the Liberals. That is that you can make
promise after promise after promise, totalling UP to
something&' like $ 6 billion, unfunded, and that they'll cop
a leader or a potential leader standing in front of theme
when asked by me and by you where'ua the money coming from
Mr Peacock, and say, well I'm not going to tell you. Do
you have a list Mr Peacock of slashing cuts in
ox pen diture in the area of social welfare I don't know,
I haven'Ft thought about it. But I'll have too but I
really haven't thought about it. if you think, like Mr
Peacock, that the Australian electorate will buy that,
ok, I don't. I believe that what the Australimn
electorate is about and what it wants is a Prime Minister
who is going to say yen if there are identified areas of
concern, including roads, what can you do about it, well
I can do a bit more. on to; of what I might say is the
184 real increase in expenditure on roads under my
Government compared with my predecessors $ 335 million a
year more that we've spent a reater proportion of the
oil revenue being spent in this last year then was spent
in their last year 19.6 against 19.5 against 19-06.
We've got the record of doing more but I'm not going to
jump in to this auction based upon some assumption about
the lack of intelligence of the Australian electorate.
Wes not on in regard to roads or anything else. One
more question then i've lot to-
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
FX: Well, there was no reason for not mentioning it
other than this.* There was a limit to the amount of time
that I had and I have made it clear, Michelle, in answer
to questions during this campaign that I am still
comitted. to the Treaty,* Now let me take this
opportunity of making the point clear again. I mentioned
the concept of a Treaty fairly early in the last
Parliament and expressed hope that it may com to
fruition. As you know, all of you know, wholve followed
events in the Parliament in the last three years or sa,
the time of my Minister, Gerry Hand, has been
overwhelmingly taken up really with two things. Meeting
the unjustified attacks that have been mado upon him and
his administration and secondly, upon getting the ATSIC
legislation through the House. That has meant that he
hasn't had the time that he would've liked to have had an
this matter. I have discussed the issue with him and we
believe that now ATSIC is in place, or being put in
place, that that is going to provide a basis for now
getting in an organised way the view of the Aboriginal
people around Australia on this question of the Treaty
and also to try and start to get a process of discuss ion
within the non-Aboriginal community. I am still
comitted to the concept of a Treaty and I hope that now
that we have got behind usn, thos. two issues that I
referred to, that we will be able to process it in the
life of this Parli ame nt.
JOURNALIS?: John Cain, Prim Minister, why wasn't he
invited yesterday?
PR. I don't believe he vasn't invited. I think Mr Cain
had his Parliament sitting yesterday. Im not aware that
he wan't invited.
JOURNIALIST:( inaudible)
PH: Mhat a long bow that one in. What a long bow. An
far as the comparison between the Government and the
Opposition if that" s what you're implicitly trying to do,
let me put it this way. Graeme Campbell is no John
Howard.
JOUNNAST. be necessary Ir Havke, how long do you think it will
to hold national standards
PH: Well we have expressed the view in the hope that by
the end of thi. Parliament we might have been able to
reach that point where we have got a sustainable
relationship. V've said that before in the hope that
that may, may be too optimistical, we hope by the end of
this Parliament, but certainly by the mid 1990s.
0
I