PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE SPECIAL PISHERS' CONFERENCE WITH THE FEDERAL
TREASURER PAUL KEATING, PREMIERS NICK GREINER, JOAN
KIRNER, WAYNE GOSS, JOHN BANNON, MICHAEL FIELD AND CARMEM
LAWRENCE, CHIEF MINISTERS TREVOR KAINE AND MARSHALL
PERRON AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN LOCAL
GOVER1MT ASSOCIATION, GRAKNE FRBCKR, PARLIAMENT HOUSE,
BRISBANE, 31 OCTOBER 1990.
H OZ PROOF ONLY
PM: OK I'll be making a brief introductory
statement, then asking my colleagues to follow, then
we'll be available for questions.
At the outset of course I want to thank my colleague the
Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister for his involvement
and cooperation and then particularly to thank my
colleagues trom the States and the Territories and the
representative of local government for their
participation and the attitude that's been displayed and
involved in this Conference. No doubt in the lead up to
and during this Conference there's been a lot of jargon,
some rather complex concepts tossed around. Today very
simply what wo can say is that out of this Conference
there has been introduced a new commonsense constructive
dimension into Comonwealth-State Federal relations of a
kind that I cartainly haven't witnessed before in my
period of Prime Ministership and which I think none of us
can probably recall in recent memory. And again, as I
say, I thank all those who have contributed to that both
at the level of leadership and I believe we also owe a
considerable debt of gratitude to our officials at the
Commonwealth and at the State level as well. Their
contribution should be recognised and it is.
What we have done in this Conference is to have jointly
accepted responsibility for doing these things. Firstly
for creating a more efficient, competitive infrastructure
in this country. Without being exhaustive, you've seen
what we've done in the area of rail freight, roads and
electricity und reform of Government trading enterprises.
We have accepted the responsibility for reducing the vast
regulatory overlapping and overlay that exists between
Commonwealth and States. We are going to simplify that
situation which will be of benefit to consumers and to
business. We have committed ourselves to the more
effective delivery of a wide range of services to the
citizens of this country. We have committed ourselves to
getting a more effective and efficient cooperative
relationship and identification of roles and
responsibilities in the increasingly important area of
the environment. And in the area of industrial relations
we have committed ourselves to continuing to improve the
increasing cooperation which is existing between
Commonwealth and State Tribunals. Let me make this
important point that what we have done is to make already
certain specific decisions that's done. In the area,
for instance, of having signed together the Heads of
Agreement for the establishment of the National Rail
Freight Corporation; also in regard to uniform food
standards. But importantly what we've done then is to
establish a process with deadlines, with specific time
frames. he I said briefly in the press conference I had
yesterday, if-you look at the range and the complexity of
the issues with which we've dealt, it would of course
have been beyond any intelligent analysis to assume that
in that whole range of issues you just sit down and make
decisions today on those issues. What we had to do was
to identify the issues and then establish not simply a
review system but a process of dealing with these issues
with specific firm deadlines to come to conclusion. And
that's what has been done. Importantly, of course, from
the point of view of the States, we have agreed to
address the issue of Commonwealth-State relations with a
commitment on our part to aim at a reduction of the
fiscal imbalance with the States accepting in that
process the obligation which must be with the
Commonwealth to retain the capacity for proper macroeconomic
management. But that's a commitment on our part
to aim at the reduction of the vertical fiscal imbalance
with that condition there in everyone's mind and we have
also given unqualified commitment to a reduction in the
proportion of grants that go from the Commonwealth to the
States which are in tied form.
So, if I can bring all those things together, what we've
been about is accepting and discharging the
responsibility of creating more of fici ent and more
effective government in this country. Put very simply we
all recognise that there is a need in the community for
Australia to become more efficient and more competitive;
that we've accepted the reality that neither the
Commonwealth or the States, separately or together$ can
be going to the community and saying and that includes
business and trade unions saying we want you to be more
efficient and more competitive if we don't accept on our
part the responsibility of making our own operation more
efficient, more cooperative, more effective and that's
what we've been about. So that from the point of view of
Government, we can create the more efficient, more
competitive infrastructure and delivery of services to
citizens through better government and better relations
and from that basis say with authority to the community
I
that in totality we want a more efficient, a more
competitive community.
Now let me finally make this point that when I announced
this initiative in July of this year I made the point
then that I wanted to see two streams of action going on
in this period of the last decade of the first century of
Federation. There was this process which was started
then and which with the magnificent response of my
colleagues we have efficiently started with the results
already there and with future results guaranteed within
an established time frame. But the next time that I meet
with my colleagues will not be at the next Special
Conference in May. We'll be meeting in April and that is
when we have that centenary meeting if you like, that is
the meeting which will deal with the question of the
Constitution. What we're doing now is to make the
decisions which are necessary within the existing
constitutional framework, that we are committed at the
Federal level, and I believe that the States are going to
be cooperative in this, to having a process of review of
the Constitution. We will be having that Conference in
April which will be the centenary of the first meeting of
the colonies in April 1891. So that together, not by way
of imposition but together, we can examine whether there
are amendments of our Constitutional compact which we can
agree on to make for better governance in this country.
So we are working within the existing system, as we must
do, to make it more efficient but we are also going to be
looking I hope to whether we can get in some respects a
more relevant constitutional framework for the future.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I conclude as I began. I had
great hopes in July when I launched this initiative but I
said then that success was going to depend upon
cooperation and a commitment of leadership. And in both
those respects my expectations have been more than
exceeded and for that, colleagues, I extend to you my
sincere gratitude. Nick.
MR GREINERI Thank you Prime Minister. I think the
most significant potential gain is actually not in the
communique. It's the first point the Prime Minister made
and that is that this Conference has, I hope,
irretrievably changed some of the political mindsets in
Australia. And we've consistently, over our history, had
a mindset that was adversarial rather than cooperative,
that was negative rather than positive, and that's
bedevilled so much in politics and public policy in
Australia. And I think its certainly started a dramatic
change as far as those attitudes go and I think the
change in attitude is very consistent with the feelings
of the public in Australia. I hope its also started to
break down some of the shibboleths about Federal and
State. The word ' national' appears quite often in the
communique. I think it is important to say that
' national' isn't the same as ' federal'. National means
that everyones cooperating. In some cases it may mean
I
4.
its going to be ' done' by Canberra. In many other cases
it will be ' done' by the States. But the point is that
there is a national perspective and that's very different
from the normal black and white approach that we've
consistently had is this Canberra's or is it the
State's. I think that's a significant change as well.
It goes without saying that this is only the first step.
In many ways the first step is the hardest. I think I
should warn that I suspect the empires will. strike back.
I don't think any of us believe that the next Federal
stages of the procesas are likely to be easy. I believe
the empires include some of the Ministers, some of the
bureaucracies and some of the private vested interests,
and none of that's at all surprising, in fact its all
obvious. But there is no doubt that the process of
change, which is undoing what are often narrow vested
interests that have been long established and well
established, is going to be difficult. And I certainly
want to say as far as I'm concerned that I don't propose
to brook any opposition from any of those empires within
New South Wales and I would be confident that will be the
attitude of the Heads of Government because the process
depends, fundamentally depends, on maintaining the
political momentum from the top. The only other point
I'd like to make, Prime Minister, is that I'd also like
to thank the bureaucracies I'm not always known for
being the greatest booster of the public sector, I think
the bureaucracies at each level have done a tremendous
job in laying the groundwork for this Conference and they
deserve some plaudits for it. But I do think it has been
the most constructive thing that I've done in two and
three quarter years as Premier, certainly the most
constructive meeting of this kind. I hope that in a year
or two we'll be able to genuinely say that its historic
as well.
PM: Thanks very much Nick. Joan...
XIRNER: Thank you Prime Minister. May I start by
saying Prime Minister again thank you for having the
vision and the leadership and the patience to enable this
conference to happen and to thank your officers and our
officers and advisers for the work they've put in in
ensuring that there was a cooperative framework and real
results from the Conference. I always think I'm very
fortunate that as a new Premier at this Conference, to
have been denied by the Conference for ever the
misfortune of attending Premiers' Conferences which are
about division and no results, and so I'm very pleased
that we've now got a framework which will enable future
Premiers' Conferences, whether on these issues or in the
financial area, to be productive. And I'm quite sure the
Australian community will welcome that as well. For
Victoria, there are three very important issues. The
first one, Commonwealth-State financial relations will
as Nick Greiner said yesterday the result of that will
really only be seen at the end of twelve months' hard
work. And I can assure you Prime Minister that Victoria
will put in the hard work on that issue. The two other
areas are national rail freight and road reform.
Victoria has been important as the largest manufacturing
industry state, requires that, as the nation does, that
those two reforms and we're well on the way to being part
of that historic reform. The third area is the area of
urban consolidation and we look forward to working with
the Commonwealth and the private sector to ensure that
the kinds of cities we have in the year 2000 are the
kinds of cities that people would want them to be.
PM: Thanks very much Joan. Wayne
GOSS: Thanks Bob. I'm not sure if there's any
historic or original lines left. I'll just make two or
three points. And that is that I think just as important
as the Agreement itself today is the approach that's been
brought to bear, the cooperative approach, the approach
of striving to seek agreement rather than make a point,
and that's important because it not only represents a
fundamental change in the way in which these Conferences
proceed, but its absolutely vital to the program of work
that we've set ourselves. As has already been pointed
out, some of the very big decisions come from the Special
Premiers' Conferences next year and its going to be vital
extent of the achievement of those big decision that
the cooperative approach, an approach based on, I think,
the national good, is maintained. The second point I
want to make is that this could not have occurred but for
the Prime Minister's initiative and it could not have
succeeded but for the fact that not only did all their
take a very responsible and cooperative approach, but
the Commonwealth was prepared to put on the table the
Prime Minister and the Treasurer were prepared to put on
the table more than has ever been put on the table
before. And I think that was vital to the securing of
the cooperation of the States which I think this State
was very much inclined to do, but I think, of course,
very conducive to that. And lastly I suppose, as the
point out, how the warm sunny climate of Queensland is so
conducive to friendly agreement.
PM: Thank you Wayne. And Carmen, Western Australia.
LAWRENCE: Thank you very much. Just to pick up on
Wayne's last point, given that the next principal one
will be in Porth in November. I expect that the hard
work that we all know has to be done for negotiations to
detailed discussions will come to fruition of a kind that
we believe is possible as the result of decisions that
were made in the last day and a half. Like the other
Premiers and the Prime Minister, I think its important we
all recognise that this is a beginning and that all of us
have a responsibility to break down some of the barriers
of the past, those ideodlogies, those inflexibilities
that have meant that we've been rivals rather than
partners. What we've seen here is the development of a
partnership where ideology and sectional interests have
been set aside and I think set aside for ever. I don't
believe that we can now go back to those old positions.
It will mean that many of us have a hard job in selling
the initiatives that we have set in place today and, as
has been said, there will be resistance, there will be
difficulties. We're talking about substantial reform of
the entire government in Australia. We're talking about
changes to finances, we're talking about changes to work
practices, we're talking about changes to our
organisations of a very fundamental kind and I think
what's needed here is a maintaining of that political
momentum. so that what is I think a break through, will
result in tangible benefits in addition to the few that
we've seen coming out of this Conference. Significant
benefits I might say, but they need to be built on and
they need to be built on firmly. In the end what we're
all talking about is a more effective government, more
effective services at a reduced cost both to business and
families. If we can't deliver on that then we will have
raised expectations unhelpfully. I believe we can
deliver and I know the commitment is there from Western
Australia to ensure that we are, perhaps for the first
time in heart, part of the Federation.
PM: Thanks very much Carmen. John.
BANNON: Prime Minister, in its own way I think this
Conference represents one of the most rapid and farreaching
changes we've seen in Australia. Reflecting in
a sense twelve months or so in Central and Eastern
Europe. And I say that because you may recall that its
just four months ago that a similar Conference of the
Heads of Government was being held in Canberra after the
Premiers' Conference, with two notable absentees, the
Prime minister and the Federal Treasurer, and certainly
with a very different tone and attitude. How we got to
this stage so quickly I think the answer lies obviously
in a number of areas, but I'd just like to mention three.
I think at last we are waking up as a nation to our place
in the world. How vulnerable we are, how international
trading, political and other relationships are changing
so quickly that Australia is going to be left behind and
badly behind if we can't internationalise. We can only
internationalise if we are operating as an efficient
Federation. If we continue to produce the division, the
lack of national approach and national unity here we are
in diabolical trouble. That message is now I think
getting across generally in our community but certainly
very apparent at this Conference. The second thing, I
think, is that experience of four months ago. That
Premiers' Conference, and I've been to more than any of
those sitting along this table, I'm a sort of relic of
the Fraser age in fact, which is a dangerous thing to be
in politics. But the fact is that I've seen a consistent
and steady deterioration over the last few years, after
initial first flush of enthusiasm when Bob Hawke and his
Government was elected, relations have deteriorated
sharply. They've got tense, some were difficult. The
Premier's Coniference has been a less and less
satisfactory procedure and it reached its nadir in June
of this year. Thank goodness its now picked up and I
think the taking stock that followed that Conference
resulted in all of us thinking we cannot see a repeat of
that, we've got to pull ourselves together and make this
operate better. The third factor I'd like to mention is
the leadership the Prime minister has shown which we all
very much acknowledge and the willingness of all the
States and Territories to cooperate in that project.
This is just a beginning. I talked about the pace of
change a minute ago. We've really got to maintain the
sense of urgency and pace in the working tasks we've set
ourselves. if we can't show tangible progress within the
next six to twelve months then all this goodwill and the
beautiful climate in Queensland will have been wasted.
PM: Thanks very much John. Michael Field, Tasmania
FIELD: Thanks. Just a couple of comments. Its very
difficult to try and be original at this stage. But a
few things. It does represent at this Conference a
change in mindset that I think is obvious to every
observer at the Conference. That for the first tine
Premiers are talking beyond give me and the Federal
Government saying no we won't rather than constructively
trying to work through solutions to problems. That's
what's happened here and everybody here recognises the
urgent need for Australia to address problems that the
political will hasn't been capable of even coming
together to talk about them and certainly not trying to
resolve them. So its important that that change in
mindset continues and continues back in the States and at
a national level where there's a lot of people who would
be looking at alarm at what's happened here because their
mindsets And so its up to the Premiers to go back
to their States and convince those cynics back in the
States that there can be great achievements made and we
have to keep the momentum going and we have to
authentically lead our States through to where these
issues have now openly discussed can be resolved
because,, as I think John Bannon said, given the nature of
Australia's place in the world it is essential now that
we work as one nation to resolve the emerging issues that
are putting such pressure on all of us in Australia,
every State and, of course, the national Government.
PM Thanks very much Michael. Trevor Kaine, the ACT.
KAINE: Well, the question is how many different ways can
you say it. But in my opening remarks yesterday I noted
that this Conference had the potential to make decisions
that would lead to fundamental change in the way
government was performed in Australia. And I think that
with the Prime Minister leading the debate we have taken
the decisions that now can potentially fundamentally
change the relationship between government in Australia
and the way government is performed. It has to do with
accountability. If all of the changes are put into
effect it could put a higher l. evel of accountability on
the States for what they do and the Territories. It has
to do with the better use of resources, it has to do with
eliminating duplication and in effect that can lead to
reduction in the expenditure of public money. I think
they are decisions that collectively can do something for
the Australian economy and if its good for the Australian
economy its good for the States and it doesn't matter
whether an Australian lives in the ACT or in Perth or in
Brisbane, whatever is good for the economy directly or
indirectly, is good for the individual Australian. And I
think, Prime Minister, that we've laid the groundwork.
It has yet to be put into effect. I think the
establishment of two more special Premiers' Conferences
next year where we can review, these are the things that
we've decided are in fact being put into effect, Its a
good thing to do to monitor and to ensure that our
decisions are in fact carried out. I'll be looking
forward to seeing the results. I think it has been
productive, we've had a spirit of cooperation, we've had
a positive approach to our collective problems. It's
been a great Conference.
PH: Thanks Trevor. Marshall Perron from the Northern
Territory. PERRON: Prime Minister. Yes, despite it being the last
decade of the first century of Federation, the remnants
of colonial administration are still alive and well in
Australia today but hopefully the new founded infectious
spirit of cooperation that we all have and there is
certainly a new atmosphere about this Conference which
hasn't been to the previous ten Premiers* Conferences
that I've attended hopefully that new spirit will mean
that from our point of view the Commonwealth will
seriously look at the remnant powers that it has in the
Northern Territory which it does not have in the States
and put us on a true footing as equal hustralians,
setting aside the Federal political representation
question. I think that the decisions that have been made
today, providing they are followed up properly by the
working parties they've all been referred to, and I'm
sure they'll be monitored very closely, can produce a
significant step forward in more efficient administration
for Australia and that's what we're all here for.
PM: Thanks very much Marshall. And finally, the
representative of Local Government, Graeme.
FRECKER: Thank you Prime Minister. I guess you keep the
best till last and if you want a symbol of the change in
attitude towards Federalism that's the very presence of
local government in these discussions for the first time.
Local government has a great deal to offer and the States
and the Commonwealth have to recognise that in this
Conference and we owe particular thanks to the Prime
minister for having the to see that coming about.
I' Local governments stand and deliver services to the
people of Australia and my 9,000 colleagues would have me
say that they are working in the national interest as
Premier Greiner has said, working in the national
interest to see if we can't be more efficient. And you
need better relationships if you are to be more efficient
and that is what we are on about. There is a world-wide
movement of localism and the Premiers and the Prime
Minister have! captured that thought and in our presence
here and the work that must flow from this I believe that
we can build a better Australia.
PM: Thanks very much Graeae.
~ JOURNALIST: seriously address the degree of vertical
fiscal imbalance.
KEATING: You', I think that's yes but the part of that
has come about by virtue of the fact that, well, the
operation of policy under this system over a very long
period of timie. So it's not a fact, it's not about the
fact that thet States have been starved of funds. It's
just that their discretion over the funds and the growth
of the funds is the issue. I think that's an issue we're
prepared to look at. But it is important, as both the
Prime Minister and I have said and the Communique Bays,
to at the same time preserve Commonwealth macro-economic
options. in relation to the national expenditure and
revenue effort which has been such an important part of
building national savings. Now within that constraint I
think it's highly desirable to look at the issue in a
basic way to see if some of that imbalance can be
redressed. flow, a number of Premiers have talked about
maintaining t: he principle of equalisation. Equalisation
can't be maintained without some vertical imbalance.
Because if there is no vertical imbalance there can be no
equalisation. So nobody's talking about an absolute
abolition of the vertical imbalance but a redressing of
it and I think, you know, we're happy enough to look at
in in that context.
JOURNALIST: substanial and do you see any scope for
new State taxes? What is your view to the Commonwealth
moving somewhat out of the income tax field to give the
States some
KEATING: Well that's what the inquiry's about. That'* s
what it's about. It's not about what my view is.
JOURNALIST: What are your views?
KEATING: Well it's not about my views. Not now anyway.
JOURNALXST: But can you just answer the first part of
the question. Do you think there's much scope the
substantial change opening remarks yesterday I think
the mood is one of substantial change. So as Treasurer
do you think that is possible?
KEATING: Well I think it's about we've now got to the
point where macro-economic policy is really cast into a
set of optimums in terms of the size of the general
Government recurrent surpluses, the discipline on
commonwealth and State recurrent budget outlays, the
operation of monetary policy and wages policy. So
micro-economic reform and change in the way in which the
micro areas of the economy function are very important.
The largest new issue, the largest new issue, coming
issue in Australian economic policy is the infrastructure
of the States. So if, as a result of these arrangements,
we see improved performance in the infrastructure
particularly in transport and much of what's been done
here yesterday is about that road and rail then we're
going to end up with a more efficient economy. And that
kind or an economy, I think, one which is operating
better and operating more with a national complexion
rather than the complexion of a number of States, I think
provides certainly some scope economic scope and
political scope for having a perhaps more desirable
balance from the States' point of view in this question
of the revenue and expenditure efforts.
JOURNALIST: Won't any imbalance though reduce your
macro control?
KEATING: Well not necessarily. That's part of the
examination. JOURNALIST: Mr Greiner, last week you set four tests..
the Liberal Council to be judged on whether or not
its success. Has it met those four tests? So what will
you be saying to your federal counterparts?
GREINER: I think the meeting has clearly jumped the
first hurdle of those tests. And those tests were the
major agenda items and I think any realistic assessment
is that significant progress has been made in terms of
setting direction, establishing principles. so I don't
think you could reasonably any that any of those four or
five tests that I set have been failed. As far as my
federal counterparts are concerned, I've got no doubt at
all that they would be supportive of the process that has
been started here. And whilst they'll no doubt have
their own differences of emphasis and nuance, I would be
amazed if they were other than supportive of the change
which as I said in my earlier remarks, the best part of
the change that's been started is that it is out of the
framework of adversarial. politics.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you've had the opportunity to
canvas certain opinions of the other Premiers on
constitutional reform. Do you think you can get
agreement for four year term over the next couple of
years?
3.1
PM: I haven't specifically addressed that with each of
the Premiers. But my answer is Yes I believe we can.
Reasons? The majority of States themselves have four
year terms. At the federal level the opposition is in
principle in agreement. The problem we have at the
federal level and I hate bringing politics into it,
Nick but the problem that we have at the federal level
when it comes to constitutional change we get a
conceptual agreement from the Opposition. But when it
gets down to the line they start to find problems. But
that's precisely why I'm initiating and supporting a new
process. I mean the realities of political life in this
country when you come to the question of constitutional
change is that you've got to have agreement across the
major parties and within major community organisations.
So the processes of constitutional conference that will
start in April at next year and which I see as a
continuing process through this last decade of this
century, will be aimed to establish basis of agreement
for change with the States involved, with all the major
political parties involve and with community
organisations. In regard to your specific question, I
would think yes that we can get agreement of the States
and of the major political parties. It's quite clear
that major community organisations like the Business
Council, trade unions and so on, they all agree that it's
appropriate so I'm very optimistic on that one.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, if you try and achieve
bipartisan support will you bring Mr Hewson into that
process? PM: In the constitutional change. Yes, that's been made
quite clear that we want the oppositions in that and
that's a matter of public record.
JOURNALIST: Mr Greiner, did you also have the Treasurer
in mind whent you talk about the Empire strikes back?
PM: It's bipire clocks not Empire.
GREINER: 1: was going to say I've never thought of the
Treasurer other than In the context French Empires. But
the PM: Borrowed my line.
GREINER: The Treasurer's got a legitimate interest
which has been common ground amongst everyone at this
table in preserving and it would be common ground with
Dr Hewson and Mr Reith. If I was Peter Reith I would
want to make sure that I had the control of the levers of
macro-economic policy. I mean I think the starting
presumption, as I did say to the Treasurer during the
Conference, the starting presumption given that Australia
is at one end of the spectrum in the world in terms of
this imbalance, the starting assumption is that you can
in fact do better without any serious way undermining
12.
national economic policy. out that is what the procoss
of discussion is going to be about over the next twelve
months. So I'm sure the Treasurer shares in that spirit.
JOURNALIST: Premier Kirner, could you to an election
selling a dual income taxation system?..
KIRNER: Well we're not going to an election, Vic, so
it's really a hypothetical question.
JOURNALIST: Within two years you might have that
decision in place.
KIRNER: Within twelve months we'll have an agreed
Commonwealth/ State financial set up and we'll go to an
election twelve months after that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how would you rate the
likelihood of a State income tax twelve months down the
track? PM:. Well I've got to go back to the point again that
both Nick and Paul have gone to. I just don't think it's
terribly helpful for any of us having agreed to establish
a process where our officials, under the guidance of our
political leadership, are going to examine all the
ramifications for us to sort of pre-empt or pre-judge. I
mean what you've got to understand is it's an enormously
complex issue. I mean there are constitutional issues
involved, there are institutional issues involved, there
are political issues involved and for either me or Paul
or Nick or anyone to say well I think that's what ought
to happen or I think there's a chance this is happening,
it just seems to be a futile exercise. I think the
truth is that from the point of view of Paul and myself,
we as political leaders will be instructing our officials
to go into this with an open mind, Say to them, anything
that the States want to put onto the table or we want put
on it, should be there, should be examined, look at what
the impact is and I think we'd share the major criterion
between us. What in the end is going to be best for the
citizens of this country? Now I don't mind in that
context frankly that if they want to say well let's have
a look at whether some sort of State income tax, if they
want to say that, OK, let it be looked at. I don't think
it's helpful if any of us in advance say well I think
that's the way it ought to go or that's the implication
if you look at that. But it's a very complex issue, you
can't look at one sort of tax without saying well what's
the implication of that for the other area of revenue
raising. I just don't think it's helpful.
JOURNALIST: Do you believe that at that process there
may arise great disparities if there were services
offered between the States and less of a role from the
Grants Commission
13.
PM: Well what you have seen I mean it's very
important point. i'm glad you've raised it again because
it enables me to supplement what I said before and what
Paul's gone to. You will see in the terms of reference
which are attached to the Communique that there is a
remaining, as there must be, commitment to the concept of
fiscal equalisation. Because if I can put it relatively
the richer, the better off States, understand that a part
of the federal compact which is now written into a sense
the very fabric of this nation is the concept that we are
all Australians and we've got to have a situation where
there is a capacity in the smaller, loe prosperous
States to provide to the Australian citizens resident in
those States standards which are comparable to the rest
of Australia. And, as a matter of logic, as I've said
before and Paul went to today, if you're going to have
that concept of fiscal equalisation operative there's got
to be by definition some fiscal, vertical fiscal
imbalance. By definition you can't have fiscal
equalisation if that doesn't, if that's not there. That
will never mean, of course, it hasn't meant at any stage
of Australia's history and it won't mean at any stage of
the future, that in terms of per capita income in each
State that it'll1 be exactly the same because that will be
a reflection of different resources, different levels of
activity. But as far as the provision of services via
Government, the concept of fiscal equalisation to enable
them to have similar fiscal effort as far as Governments
are concerned will remain intrinsic and it's reflected in
the terms of reference.
JOURNALIST: Hr Hawke, would you outline for us what your
plans would be for the April Conference on
cnetitutional change
PM: Well we haven't finalised our position on that.
From our point of view, and you remember that we alone
have not got the responsibility for this, we'll be doing
it in association with the academic institutions and the
States and other interested bodies, so it is very much a
joint exercise, I will be talking with my people and
getting what I see from the Commonwealth point of view,
our priorities. I emphasise that I see this as a process
which in a uray will replicate that last decade of the
nineteenth century. They took ten years, as you know, to
work towards; Federation with the they had actually
three conventions, 91, 97 and 98. Now I think it ought
to be an ongoing process. So that we could hopefully see
as a nation a series of referenda I mean I'm not
talking about thousands of them -but a series of
referenda through this decade which would put us in a
position thatt as we launch into the second century of
Federation vie will be both constitutionally better
equipped anti as a result of these processes in machinery
terms, better equipped. Now without therefore
identifying all the priorities that I'll take into that
Conference, I would pick up the one that was mentioned, I
think it was by Amanda, about the four year term, I think
14.
that's something that's got to be dealt with immediately.
I would hope, really hope, that out Of that conference in
91, we will establish the basis whereby i'll be able to
go into the next election with a referendum on the four
year term.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you think this new found
national spirit extend itself to a situation where in the
deep future we'll see no State Governments at all?
PM: We will see no State Governments at all?
JOURNALIST: Yes,
PM: No, I haven't let me not avoid I mean it is a
matter of record that in 1979 I said if you were starting
afresh you wouldn't have the system we've got now.
That's common-You just wouldn't have that system.
If you were starting perhaps you would have a
national government and some series of regionals. But
that's not the reality and I'm about dealing with
realities. That is not going to be that sort of change
in my lifetime or in the foreseeable future. So the
obligation upon us all is to say this is what we've got,
let's cooperate to make it work as efficiently as
possible. JOURNALIST: inaudible
KEATING: No, because the area in which the States can
approach the Commonwealth for any further support under
the globals is for the provisions of upfront costs to
reduce the costs of their infrastructure, particularly
for redundancies. This is often the problem of trying to
reduce staff levels within Government trading enterprises
that there is a big upfront cost which with a delayed
benefit and the fact is most governments just can't
afford that upf ront cost from their general or current
position. So, you know, in terms of the national
economic outcome while there is a higher level of public
borrowing. There is a very clear and measurable economic
efficiency benefit down the line and, you know, economic
policy is all about those kind of trade-of fs and this is
a sensible one, in my view.
JOURNALIST: The States have gone beyond that want
special payments..
KEATING: No they haven't. well that's not true. That's
not true. I mean some States may want it but the
Commonwealth is basically not operating the trading
enterprises of the States. That's their responsibility,
not ours, except for the specified, defined areas, such
as the Rail Freight Corporation, etc.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if you were starting afresh
you'd probably have a single system of industrial
relations and those who know moving towards that,
06regareded as just too difficult for the Premiers
PM: No, let's be quite direct about this. There is an
attitude in some quarters in the States that the Concept
of one national system would be ideal. The realities are
that within the trade union ranks and may i say to some
extent in employer ranks but certainly in the trade
union ranks, they are happier with a system to which they
are accustomed where they have two jurisdictions. It
simply is, in the judgement of all of-us, not politically
realistic at the moment to be saying all right it all
comes to Canberra. In that circumstance what we've
agreed is alright there's been quite a significant amount
of progress been made in the last 12 to 18 months. I
mean let me tie specific about that. We've now just
concluded the, process of appointing senior members of
State tribunals to vice presidential positions on the
Industrial Relations Commission, Which is, you know, an
enormous advaince in terms of integrating approaches to
the resolution of industrial problems. Co-location of
registries and actual tribunals and in that sense
significant progress has been made and we are committed
to continuine. that sort of process. Now it may well be
that as that process goes on that a greater degree of
confidence will arise in the industrial community, both
trade unions and employers, that it would make sense to
move to one system. But the community is not ready for
that yet.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Communique equity
participation in the national railway By that do you
mean private enterprise
PH: We're talking about the possibility of equity
participation at the Government level. We don't exclude
cooperation with, involvement of the private sector and
indeed in our~ case the Commonwealth has already allocated
$ 5034 for upgrading rail infrastructure, preparatory to
the establishment of the Corporation and in that process
it is going -to involve a facilitation of involvement by
the private isector in developing our rail freight
infrastructure and making it more efficient. So the
realities in Australia are the the economic realities
are simple and unavoidable. That is firstly, that
transport by definition is a fundamentally significant
element in our economic infrastructure, much more so than
some of the smaller European countries. Secondly, that
our transport infrastructure involves now an
inter-relationship between the public and the private
sector and we shouldn't have any ideological hang-ups in
our Judgement, and I think I reflect the view of all the
Premiers, we! should have no ideological hang-ups about
the way that. you get the greatest degree of
complementarity and involvement of both sectors to make
it more efficient. I don't think there's any
differentiation on that point.
16.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, how much difficulty do you expect
to encounter
PM: Well it won't be without difficulty. Let's take the
two sectors. Lot's take rail first. It is the case that
already in the States in varying degrees they have
undertaken reform which has involved addressing the
question of over-manning, other side of that reduction of
jobs and there have been varying degrees, as I say, of
difficulty there. What we say in regard to the National
Rail Freight scheme, it's going to involve in the phrase
we've used, a clean sheet industrial award. Now in the
negotiation of that there's going to be sone
difficulties. Let me say that in the work that's already
gone in to the establishment of this National Rail
Freight Corporation, we've had the involvement of the
ACTU, they've been involved in the preparatory work. So
yes, there'll be problems but they are I am very
confident of the timetable we've set for the lint of July
91, will be achieved and it will be, in my Judgement, a
very significant contribution to improving the economic
infrastructure of this country. Now, roads. well we're
going to have some problems there. No, we shouldn't
attempt to avoid this. The fact is that we've had an
entirely stupid situation in this country and one which
in the judgement of all of us is untenable if you were
really serious about micro-economic reform. The people
and the elements of our economy who use our roads, the
heavy users, have not been meeting in cost terms the
damage and the impact of their usage on the roads. In
that sense you've got to have a system of user
contribution which reflects much more than at present
impact of that usage upon the roads system. As part of
this conceptual approach also you'll see talk about the
need to have a national, and in a sense that Nick uses
that word, a national approach to regulation and so on.
Now I only have to state those things for you to
understand that anyone who under the present system is
getting a significant advantage from an under cost
recovery is not going to be standing out there and saying
hooray for Bob and the Premiers. They are really going
to attack this problem in a way which will mean a greater
return. So there will be problems. But two things that
have to be understood about that, the one that I've
already said that it Just simply doesn't make sense in a
country which depends so much upon the transport of goods
by road. It doesn't make any sense to have a system for
those who are using that system and imposing the most
damage on it are not effectively contributing to the
maintenance of that system. And secondly, it makes no
sense at all for Paul or myself, on behalf of the
Commonwealth and our colleagues from the States, to be
establishing a National Rail Freight Corporation and
wanting it to be commercial and competitive if the road
system is not having to meet a level of charges
commensurate with the impact of its operation. I mean
you'd be pouring money down the drain in establishing a
National Road Freight Corporation if they weren't in a
17.
position where they could be competitive. So in meeting
those challenges, yes there will be some problems. But
I'm very confident that in this situation if we're going
to have some angst and anger that all of us as
Governments are going to be able to say well we're in
this together.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in the past
declaration of war, isn't it?
PM: No, certainly I'm not in the declaration of war.
But what we are jointly in the declaration of is this; a
declaration of our commitment to have the most efficient
and competitive economic infrastructure. That's what we
are declaring. We're not declaring war, we're declaring
our commitment to do everything we can as Government to
create the most efficient economic infrastructure. That
includes most particularly in the transport area. Now
if, in declaring our commitment to do that is going to
involve some problems with some areas, well so be it. I
don't think together we're going to walk away from that.
But let me say this with respect to the transport
industry generally. We have there are indications of
their understanding as an industry of the need to address
these issues. So I don't think it's just going to be a
sort of black and white confrontation.
JOURNALIST: going to mean increased costs for a lot
of truck drivers and on the roads.
PM: I don't know, I mean it will mean increased costs
for some. I mean you've got differentials amongst the
States now and in giving effect, as we have said
together, to the principles that are involved in the
Interstate Commission report, yes it will mean some
increased costs for some. None of us avoid that.
Although you will appreciate that there is a recognition
in the Communique that there will have to be some account
taken of certain regional differences. For instance, in
respect of Queensland and the Northern Territory, there
has been an acceptance of the particular circumstances of
the road trains that operate across there. We've got to
take those things into account. But what you've got to
understand, it never, well as far as I know never, you
never have economic reform without some pain. I don't
know where you get it without some pain. The point is
that in the long term, or the medium to long term, the
nation as a whole benefits from change.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the question of costs of
infrastructure, what is your attitude now to
privatisation program the airlines
PM: I've made it quite clear at all times that when
you're talking about using the proceeds you are talking
about the permanent on-going savings. Forget $ 2 billion,
$ 3 billion or whatever you want to talk about from sales,
it's not that figure. It is your permanent on-going nett
I jl
18.
savings. I have a view that it is appropriate to use
those things in this area, those elements. Let me make
this point; within the constraints of overall economic
policy which we refer to in the Commiunique just let me
go to the opening point that we make about
infrastructure. The very first point is leaders
recognise that Australia's economic difficulties require
continuing restraint in public spending and borrowing and
that this will need to be taken into account ini
considering capacity for new infrastructure spending.
Now within that framework where we recognise that we just
can't, you know, spend money like that it may be that our
decision over a period of time will be that fixcing up and
improving the economic infrastructure may require over a
period of time perhaps even more than that. But as far
as what you will use from the sale of assets conceptually
all that's involved is the nett permanent savings. I
made that clear at all times. But it may be, as part of
looking at infrastructure, we may decide as part of
overall economic policy that improvement of
infrastructure requires could be more than that. But
it will still have to be done within the constraints
recognised in the very first paragraph of the Communique.
JOURNALIST: Hr Keating a matter of principle that
giving the States any access to an increased tax base..
KEATING: Well I've answered that earlier. But the fact
is now Commonwealth payments to the States has declined
significantly as a proportion of the commonwealth budget.
So we're talking about a base which is in macro-economic
terms quite acceptable. All the changes which have been
made at Premiers' Conferences are about the last couple
of percentage points. It's not about the great bulk of
these funds. It's about the growth factors or lack of,
or whether there's a cut in real terms. But we're
talking about a couple of percentage points. So, you
know, it may be possible to devise a system where those
kinds of discretions are still open for public policy
questions. But where there is perhaps more control of
revenues by the States. Again, as the Prime Minister
said, that's something we can look at. That's the point
of the study.
PM: There was one over here.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, about the four year term. What
0 0
PM: Well that goes back to the point I was Baying
before. If there's one truth that's obvious in regard to
constitutional reform in this country it is that you will
not get change without agreement of the parties. I mean,
as I use the classic example; if you can't get through a
referendum which sought to enshrine Into the Constitution
that any citizen who had his or her property compulsorily
acquired by a government would have the right to fair
compensation from government. If you can't get that
19.
through, and we couldn't get that at the last ref erendum*,
you're battling to get anything through. So if you've
got any brains you come to the conclusion that you must
have cross-party agreement and involvement of States.
Now, therefore, that means in regard to your question we
are going to have to work out some basis of agreement
between ourselves and the other parties on that aspect of
the question. So I recognise that it's been a problem in
the past. We're Just going to have to sort that one out.
JOURNALIST: do you mean a fixed four year term or a
maximum four year term?
PH: Well speaking from my, what happens in some of the
States is that they have four year terms and then there's
a minimum of three years, I think, with tour which you
have any discretion. I mean, that's not true in all of
them. But speaking for myself if you're going to have
four year teirms well then I think it should be a real
four years. with a minimum period within which there's a
discretion. That's my own view but that's, I mean, it's
something I've got to discuss with my colleagues.
JOURNALIST: Mr Greiner, what's your view on Senate
terms? GREINER: My view on Senate terms.
JOURNALIST: On Senate terms.
GREINER: Tom's question? I'd have a strong view
about. I mean the options are fairly limited aren't
they. They're either out of whack and they're six years
or they're eight years which is the obvious double of one
Lower House ' term. I don't have a strong view. For what
it's worth I obviously support four year terms for the
Lower House of the Federal Parliament. Anyone of any
brains does.
JOURNALIST: Mr Greiner, what about four year terms for
the Senate as well as the House of Representatives?
GREINERt No. I mean, that was rejected as I recall last
time and I think that is, there's nowhere in the world
where that operates, Amanda, and I think it is unlikely
to be the outcome of the process the Prime Minister
describes. But it's not really a problem that I'm losing
too much Bleep over.
JOURNALIST: This option that you just outlined in your
personal view, Mr Hawke, the fixed minimum period. Is
this the one that you'll be pushing in talks both within
the Government and with Dr Hewson?
PM; Look, I'm simply going to, when I discuss this, when
we get to the point of discussing this with my colleague
which will be, can't be too far in the distance, as we
are getting up to that April meeting. I really want to
listen to what they've got to Bay. I'm simply at this
stage expressing no more than a personal view that it is,
that what people want is to have a situation where
they've got a Government which is going to be in there
for a longer period and the concept of four years seems
to be about right. I mean, for instance, some people
talk about five. You've got five years in the United
Kingdom. I happen to think five years is too long. I
think four years is right. Now if you think four years
is right then the logic of that to me suggests that it
should be done in a way which guarantees as far as
possible is that it is going to be as close to four years
as you can. But, you know, I want to hear what my
colleagues have to say about it. That's the view I'll be
expressing when the debate takes place.
JOURNALIST: Hr Greiner, how closely will you link
progress on financial relationships with across the board
progress. In other words, if you don't get what the
State regards as satisfactory outcome in about 12 months
time on the financial relationship is there a danger that
the federal political will be forgotten?
GREINER: I would hope not. I mean, I think we should be
progressing on all these fronts and there are very many
of them at the same time and as diligently as we can. I
don't see it as a trade-off, you know, that we'll give on
national recognition, mutual recognition of various
things in return for a change in the tax base. I think
that's back to the traditional mindset. No, I mean, I
think each of these things in and of themselves has got
merit and I don't think we're really about trying to
trade-off micro-economic reform against Federal/ State
financial reform. That would be cutting of your nose to
spite your face.
JOURNALIST: Mr Keating, on the question of obtaining
macro-economic
KEATING: What's that. Keep control of
JOURNALIST: find the macro-economic control
KEATING: That's not been the issue. The balanced budget
has not been the issue. It's about levels. You can have
receipts and outlays at this level or at that level.
They're both balanced but what level would you like?
JOURNALIST: KEATING: Well that's what the communique said.
PM: That's what the Communique said.
JOURNALIST: Mr Keating, after the Premiers' Conference
of Mr Bannon. That told us that there's a very
clever and sophisticated process going on with those
bureaucrats. I mean, what has happened since?
KEATING: Well it's an efficient process. An efficient
process. It may not be the most agreeable process but,
in fact, I was saying to Premier Kirner earlier there's
one place not to be in this system is between a Premier
and a bucket of money.
KIRNER: That's why I'm sitting next to him.
KEATING: Is that you can be in grave bodily danger. No
I've often found myself in this position with Premier
Bannon. Given the fact he's more athletic than me means
that I've often been at risk. Personal risk. But
because we always get along so well, all of us, we mostly
get it togethter. The point I made after the last
Premiers' Conference was that, I don't think we ought to
be too of this process. There's been a requirement
in this country to cut back the call by the public sector
on Australian savings. That's now backed by seven to
eight percentage points of gross domestic product. Now
today that's worth $ 30 billion and nobody in this room
has to be an economic genius to know what sort of
interest rat-ss Australia would have if the Commonwealth
and the Stats were putting $ 30 billion worth of paper
into the market to be sold this year. Now there's
obviously been some knashing of teeth in getting that
changed. But that change has been required by the fact
that the world decided not to pay us the income we
believe was always ours. I don't, at the last meeting, I
made this point yesterday. We overturned 40 years of
debt management practice by returning to the States the
debt, the management of their own debt. Debt raised for
them under the financial agreement by the Commonwealth.
Now if that was done in a ministerial meeting we'd be
doing it over a period of years. We did it-in one day.
So the meetings have been efficient. Most premiers'
conference meetings have been efficient, as indeed
yesterday's was in the very large agenda.
JOURNALIST: But aren't always going to occur when
money is at stake. In other words, the harmony we've
seen here is not necessarily going to be repeated in
future years when you are carving up the money.
KEATING: No but it'. a matter of what the ambience is.
What the ambience is about. What I would contend that
the ambience at this meeting and indeed the last four or
five premiers' conference meetings has been an acceptance
by the States of the need for the public sector to reduce
its call on savings. Now there may be arguments about
what the levels are and who gets special additions and
whether Grants Commission formulas are accepted or not.
There's been generally a cooperative ambience in
JOURNALIST: But John Bannon just said the ambience was
KEATINGs No but I credit John with being a contributor
to this cooperation in years past.
21.
22.
BANNON: Yes i. t's true to say there's a level Of
cooperation but I must say also that I think we should be
very careful of any definition of efficiency that means
one party to a gets everything their own way.
Unfortunately the premiers' conference efficiency was
trembling in that direction. I think it needed to change
and indeed it is changing.
JOURNALIST: But surely this is the real point because
isn't there ultimately conflict because the states are
saying we are now prepared to take more economic
responsibility. We're now more economically efficient
units. If that's to be realised then the States must
have more power which is what they're seeking here
particularly finance and tax powers. But surely
ultimately that does cut across the overall macro
management of the Commonwealth.
PM: Read the Communique. I mean, what the Communique
says reflects the nature of the discussion that we had
both before we got to the Conference and in the
Conference itself. What we have said, and indeed, read
the States' paper. The States' paper prepared for this
Conference. In their paper they recognise unequivocally
the responsibility that the Commonwealth has for
macro-economic management. We didn't impose that view
upon them. That's their view. Now they are saying that
they hope that accepting that view there will be room to
reduce the imbalance that exists. it is the case that it
is, on the evidence seems to be, a somewhat larger
imbalance than in other federations. They say wall
accepting that you've got to have that responsibility we
want to have a process of examining whether it can be
reduced. We've said we'll go into that with the aim of
reducing it provided that there is an acceptance of the
need to have an outcome in the end which gives us the
assurance that we can discharge our responsibility. Now
there's no problem about that. We've accepted that. The
States have accepted it. I go back to the answer I gave
before. These are by definition exceedingly complex
issues. The States accept that they are complex but
we've gone into it with good intent. A declaration of
our intent to work towards that and achieve it if we can.
There is nothing, I mean, you've got to say both from our
point of view and from theirs, there is nothing magical
about a precise imbalance that exists now. It isn't
because it exists now necessarily perfect and the only
one. JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: No. In all the discussion that we've had there's
been no suggestion that there be an absolute balance. No
suggestion at all
JOURNALIST: with the responsibilities.
23.
PM: That doesn't mean exact balance. Because as I said
before by definition you can't have fiscal equalisation
if you've got an absence of imbalance. I mean that is
Just a question of arithmetical logic which is understood
and accepted by
JOURNALIST: true but it's not exactly what he said.
PM: Not exactly what who said.
JOURNALIST: What the States' Paper said.
PH: All I'm saying is that in the discussion with the
States, Michelle, there was never any proposition that
you have absolute balance.
JOURNALIST: One other question on that. There's one
area that's been fenced of f from micro-economic reform
here and that is there are questions of fiscal
equalisation. Now every Premier and Prime Minister
at this table is in the process of cutting services to
country areas on the grounds that maintain that level
of service into those places yet every family in Victoria
and New South, Wales has been taxed $ 100 a year to keep
people who live in the Northern Territory and Tasmania
and so on. Is it time that we re-evaluate this
GREINER: I can see you're trying to divisions
amongst the group there. It is perfectly true, of
course, with Victoria and New South Wales hold the view,
regardless of which side of politics is in, that the
existing fiscal equalisation arrangements reflect a
situation that no longer applies. That doesn't mean
that, sorry we totally accept the notion of fiscal
equalisation. I think that I would have the view, and I
suspect Joan Kirner would, that the detail of the way
that is implemented needs to be under continuing review
and that includes the Grants Commission as well. So I
don't think you would expect that process to be frozen in
time. I don't think it's so much a matter of it being
fenced of f. We certainly all accept and certainly I
accept on behalf of New South Wales, which is the most
disadvantaged with Victoria, that there needs to be
fiscal equalisation. It is part of the basic compact Of
the ground rules. The question of exactly how that
applies between all the States as their respective
economic positions change is obviously something we think
ought to be reconsidered.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister before you go could I ask
your comment on the latest Morgan Gallup poll figures.
It shows that for the first time in seven years..
PM: It's taken seven years. Now it's happened I really
have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. That is I
wouldn't like to go to a poll now, frankly. But I
GREINER: I would.
24.
PM: Yes. Well you, that's within your power to make a
decision. KEATING: We've just won one. We're not going to throw
it away.
PM! The point is that we've just won one. We've got
over two years. I am supremely confident that if I and
Paul and my colleagues go about the business of
government, as we are in this exercise and other things
we are doing, that when the time comes that we will get
the support. I'm not surprised that we're down in the
Polls at the moment because as I've said we know that
people are hurting but we've had to do the things that
we've done. There are a range of other circumstances
which are involved. I find, let me say, I find this
period a very exciting and challenging one. One that I'm
looking forward to.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister could I just ask you on the
Gulf. Does your intelligence lead you to any greater
assessment of the war?
PM1: No. You'll appreciate that I'm not in a position
where I can go to all the intelligence and confidential
information I have. But I think the honest answer is
this that there is no-one who at this point can say with
certainty what the likely path of events is. But I can
say from my knowledge of United States and other powers
that are involved in the region in attempting to enforce
the sanctions and to redress the situation that exists
that there is no-one who wants war. I mean, we're not
being led by some compulsive desire to have a war* We
would much rather have a situation where Saddam Hussein
was to respond to the realities and those realities are
that the world will not accept the attempt at acquisition
of Kuwait by Iraq. There is all the evidence continuing
to come through of solidarity, of the rest of the world,
reflected in the continuing application of sanctions, the
continuing votes of the Security Council of the United
Nations. So it's my hope that Saddam Hussein will
recognise those facts and that there will not be war.
But I can't on the basis of all the evidence I've got not
now, say I know with certainty what the course of events
will be. I don't think there's anyone, anyone, who can
give you that answer with precision and with
definiteness. So I don't pretend to make an answer which
I don't believe, on the facts, I'm entitled to.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Melbourne Herald-sun has
.* to guarantee its freedom of speech. in two weeks
has been pulled by unions..
PM: Well, you know, when you look over the history of
the Melbourne Herald and its attitude to my Government.
No newspaper in the country dedicated itself more to the
destruction of this Government on a fundamental issue of
S importance like the assets test. I find it a little bit
strange that, you know, they are looking to me to rescue
them from some particular situation. I'm not across the
details, by the way, of what you're talking about of what
the unions may be doing to them in some of situation.
But the Melbourne Herald-Sun it's a pretty big group they
are big boys and they ought to be able to look after
themselves. ends