( 6.
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH PAUL LYNEHAM, 7.30 REPORT
31 OCTOBER 1990
E OE -PROOF ONLY
LYNEHAM: Prime Minister, welcome again to the program.
PM: Thanks Paul.
LYNEHAM: When we get through the jargon, which you
yourself admitted was here in some abundance, what is
there here new for average Australian families?
PM: The certainty that as a result of this conference we
are going to have these things that will benefit them.
Firstly, a more efficient economic infrastructure in the
area of rail and road which will lead to a more efficient
and competitive economy which must have benefits for
them. Secondly, a commitment on the part of the
Commonwealth and the State and Local Governments to
eradicate as far as possible existing duplication in
regulatory rElform. regulation systems which must, as
it exists nowr, mean a higher cost of goods and services
than need be. So to the extent that we reduce that
regulatory overlap between the States and the States and
the Commonwealth, an improvement for them. It also means
in regard to the delivery of services that now they are
being delivered more expensively than they should be
because theret are significant areas of overlap between
the Commonwealth and the States. We're committed to
eliminating that. So they'll get better services more
cheaply. Those are the immediate things. In the area of
electricity for residents in the eastern states, a
commitment to see whether there can be a greater
integration o~ f electricity generation and transmission.
That must mean over time cheaper electricity than
otherwise would have been the case for individuals and
for businesses.
LYNEHAMv: On one hand you're going to set up this
national rail freight system, on the other hand you're
going to be slugging the truckies quite heavily now,
aren ' t you, for
PM: Just let's see it's not the one or the other. To
say you're going to be slugging the truckies heavily is
really, with respect to you, a very inadequate statement
of both the problem we're addressing and the solution
that's going to emerge. The indisputable fact is, as has
been established by inquiry after inquiry, most recently
by the Interstate Commission, that heavy road users are
undercharged in terms of the impact of their operations
upon the road systems. Now, the interests of all
Australians demand that there be a greater degree of
correlation in terms of charge for road usage and damage
caused because that's important not only in regard to the
road freight system but you mentioned rail. What
governments are now going to do is to put money into
creating a more efficient, by world standards, rail
freight system in this country. Now it's a waste of time
trying to create a position where rail can be competitive
if you're gcing to have a totally subsidised, not
totally but very significantly subsidised road freight
system. So we've got to get both right.
LYNEHAM: I can feel a few truckie blockades in the wind
though can't ' you?
PM: Yes, and I suppose talk like that will encourage
them. But the fact is that if governments, and we are at
one on this, and across political boundaries,
conservative governments, labor governments, we are at
one in saying that we have got to face this issue and
have a system which is efficient. Now if when you know
things have to be done you simply said oh well
opposition, and you didn't do it, what sort of government
would you be!?
LYNEHAM: OrL the question of looking at how or whether
the States should be able to raise more of the money they
spend, is it possible that that will lead at some time in
the future t~ o State taxes, State income taxes for
example? PM: I wouldn't think it will lead to State income taxes.
But as I've said, Paul, in the press conference earlier
today, and this, if you'll remember, reflected the
attitudes of the States as well. We are not trying to
pre-judge issues. What I'm saying is if the States want
to put any issue on the table in regard to either
existing taxes or new taxes, well then they should. But
I would think that the fact that they've had the
opportunity to impose income taxes now right up until
last year when we finally changed the provisions because
none of them wanted to exercise them, would lead you to
the prima facie conclusion they wouldn't be arguing with
that. LYNEHAM: Do you think people care who decides on the
spending, as long as it's spent wisely, whether the
Commonwealth directs the States to spend in a certain way
or not?
PM: I think the right question is are people concerned
as to whether you have effective overall macro-economic
management which does involve responsibility for levels
of revenue and spending. And they are very much
concerned about that. But I would say that provided they
are confident: that the national government which has the
responsibilit: y for macro-economic policy retains the
capacity to conduct that policy then they don't give a
damn, in my judgement, about those sorts of issues
provided that: capacity is there. That really is the
attitude of t: he Commonwealth and of the States.
LYNEHAM: Nick Greiner told the Liberals in Brisbane last
week that he thinks we're moving to a -sort of postideological
phase of politics. People just want results.
They're not interested in all the political-type
arguments. PM: I think to a considerable extent he's right. But
that's not only looking at Australian politics. I mean
if you look at politics the world round we are now seeing
the dissipation of sharp ideology as a vehicle to getting
power and exe-rcising it. That's true in Europe. I think
it's true generally around the world. Issues of concern
to people don't now neatly fit into some left or right
label outstanding example of that is the question of
the environme-nt.
LYNEHAM: Talking of the environment, one of the dangers
that some of the environmentalists fear is that by having
a system of national standards set in consultation with
the States, you end up with the lowest common
denominator, that the Commonwealth is not showing real
leadership.
PM: That's a false fear and it's not fair to the States.
I mean what i~ s recognised in the approaches we've adopted
in the environment here is to recognise that
constitutionally, whether we like it or not, there are
certain areas; of responsibility for the States, and
certain areas; where we've got responsibility. Now, what
follows from that is there is the possibility and in past
the fact of unnecessary duplication and conflict which
makes it difficult for those whose concern is for the
environment t~ o see a path to the right solution creates
problems for those who are wanting to have economic
development where environmental issues are involved. I'm
not quite sure where they are in terms of the
relationship between the environmental requirements of
the State or the Commonwealth. Now what we've agreed is
that we're go~ ing to address those issues in terms of
trying to get; the greatest degree of complementarity or
acceptance of responsibility in one area or the other
that we can. There's been too much division in the past
on that and J. must myself they've been
extraordinarily co-operative on that.
LYNEHAM: In this protest of division though Commonwealth
leadership has saved the Franklin, saved Fraser Island,
the Daintree, you've made decisions like Wesley Vale.
Would those sorts of decisions still be made under the
sort of regime you're anticipating?
PM: I think it's more likely that you're going to get
correct decisions of that type under this new regime.
Because those! decisions occurred within the context of
confrontation. I mean we had States who were saying
anything that: the Commonwealth did was by definition ugly
and evil and was to be repudiated. The attitude now, the
ambience is much different, much more constructive.
LYNEHAM: On the question of regulations going back to
Nick Greiner again he made the point here last week
that the sausage in Queensland can't necessarily be
classed as a sausage in NSW. You ought to get rid of
that sort stupidity presumably?
PM: Yes, that's one of the things. I mean you go back
to I'm not you know a novice in thinking or talking
about these things. You go back to when I lectured about
these things in 1979. I used so many examples there. I
mean you had ridiculous situations like in the area of
road transport because of this regulation from one State
to another. Trucking operators are finding it more
economic to travel longer distances to avoid any cost in
one State to another. I mean it's just quite absurd.
Now that's what we're about, recognising that we are one
nation and trying to get harmonisation of regulation.
But in the ar. ea of regulatory reform we'vye made an
enormous advance What we've done is to adopt the
concept of mutuality, mutual recognition. That is, we're
saying well r-ather than in the past we had a whole lot of
different standards and someone had to satisfy that
standard or that standard or that standard again. if
there's a standard in one State then that will be
accepted in another. Although there are some areas in
which, particularly in the question of national food
standards there should be uniformity and we've agreed to
do that.
LYNEHAM: The Treasurer said earlier today never stand
between a State Premier and a bucket of money.
PM: I said -to him when we were coming down in the lift,
I said I've boeen hearing that for seven years. It always
gets a good Laugh and he got a good one today.
LYNEHAM: The good will and sincerity we've seen over the
last day or : so here, will the shine go off the ball a bit
though when -you get back to the old procedures of trying
to carve up -that bucket of money and get back to the
PM: No, I thiink the attitude will change, as reflected
here. There's an element of permanency about them. But
also this fact that has been taken into account, at the
last conference we gave a three year real terms guarantee
in regard to the level of financial grants which
introduces an element of predictability that wasn't there
before.
LYNEHAM: Did you ever consider inviting Dr Hewson to
this get together?
PM: No. No, of course not. And I don't know whether he
had any serious contemplation I mean, it was an
insanity. LYNEHAM: But you invited a representative of local
government. PM: Yes because they are government. They are
government. I made the simple point the other day to Dr
Hewson courtesy of the media. There's one requirement
for attending a heads of government meeting and that's to
be a head of government.
LYNEHAM: But he will be, will he, at the April get
together to -talk about constitutional change?
PM: I certainly hope so. it's something quite
different. Trhat's not how existing governments cooperate.
That is about looking at the constitution to
see for the future whether there are possible changes to
the constitution which will make for better governance in
this country. And not only is it appropriate, and in my
judgement it is necessary, for all political parties to
be represented at that.
LYNEHAM: You've talked about a series of referenda
through this decade. Now I know one idea you have is a
four year term for the House of Reps, perhaps with a
fixed three year component in there so you can't keep
going very very early.
PM: I expressed a personal view on that. I mean it
seems to me as a matter of logic that what you're about
is to say you must address the degree of uncertainty that
is associated with short three year terms. And so you
are going to move to four year terms. Well then you've
got to give some substance to that. So expressing my
view, I mean I don't really have much hang-up about it
being actually fixed and you know except for ' 84 when I
had an early election to get the two Houses into sync,
I've taken the Parliament full term.
LYNEHAM: On other matters Prime Minister, a few other
matters Prime Minister. Dr Hewson is now ahead of you as
preferred Prime Minister for the first time.
PM: Yes, well seven and a half years it's taken someone
to do that. My answer to that has been I don't like
the polls being down. No politician does. I wouldn't
like to have an election now. I've just won an election
and I'm confident that when we have to go to the election
people will then make a judgement as to who is better to
govern them at that time in the light of performance and
alternatives and I'm confident about that outcome.
LYNEHAM: It's not a fundamental shift in Bob Hawke's
great love afEfair with the Australian people?
PM: No, not at all. Not at all.
LYNEHAM: You've not been jilted?
PM: No, I don't think so. I think some of them are
saying hey Bob, we're hurting and we're telling you.
That's fair enough. That's life. But I think in the
longer term more of them would say Bob we'd give you away
if we perceived that you're not prepared to take the
tough decisions. I mean when you're taking tough
decisions and people are hurting they're going to mark
you down. ] 3ut in the end I think more of them mark you
down if they think you're not going to do what you
think's right for the country.
LYNEHAM: Is Federal Labor mounting a smear campaign
against Dr Hewson?
PM: No, certainly not. I think that it's valid to
examine Hewson as the individual and as the leader in
terms of what he's saying. Now one of the more
preposterous things that's been said in federal politics
for a very long time is John Hewson's statement that he
is for the workers and that the Liberal Party is for the
workers. LYNEHAM: He said you've forgotten the aspirations of
workers. PM: Well, ok, but words out of a politician's mouth are
easy. You've got to ask what they mean. He says he's
for the workers and we've forgotten about the workers.
Well what is most important to the workers and what's the
position of H-awke and Hewson in regard to that? The most
important thing is that they be workers, that they have a
job. Otherwise they're not workers. Now he was there
advising the previous government. The Hewson thinking,
the Hewson commitment was there and you had the most
massive growth of unemployment in the post-war period.
You had Hawke come in and have had a rate of worker
creation, job creation, five times faster than under the
Hewson philosophy and the Hewson involvement. What else
has been important to workers is what they get paid.
Hewson as adviser, and Hewson as Leader of the Liberal
Party has opposed every national wage increase, every
time. LYNEHAM: So you reckon you're ahead where it counts?
PM: And I will be. I mean it's easy getting up and
saying I'm for the workers, Hawkey's for the workers.
The things that determine whether you've got a job and
what you get paid for it, what's your remuneration, on
every one of those issues Hewson has been found wanting,
he's been found diametrically opposed to the interests of
workers. LYNEHAM: Finally Prime minister, the Uruguay Round, the
trade talks. We're getting some very gloomy, indeed
alarming predictions from some people about what will
happen if they fail, and increasing suggestions that they
might very well fail.
PM: Yes, there are concerns and there are grounds for
concern. The Europeans are grossly failing to face up to
the responsibilities, the very serious responsibilities
they have in this area. It is known that for a large
number of countries, unless there is agreement in regard
to freeing up international trade in agricultural
products then there won't be agreement on anything.
LYNEHAM: And where do we go if there's a big world trade
war between the United States and the Europeans?
PM: Well, we've got to look to our position. I've
always, as you know, been totally commi~ tted to it and I
remain totally committed to the concept of freeing up
international trade. My whole philosophy and my actions
as Prime Minister have been committed to that and will
continue to be. If you take the worse case scenario that
as a result of the intransigence and particularly of the
Europeans that you are going to get a dissent in
then Australia in that circumstance will have to look to
what it needs to do to protect itself in that situation.
And we will if necessary.
LYNEHAM: Try and join our Asian neighbours.
PM: You'll remember when I first was talking about APEC
I said this is a free trade grouping. committed to
it in respect of itself.
LYNEHAM: The Asia Pacific countries.
PM: Yes, committed to free trading in the area and in
the world. And I make some parenthetical
observation earlier in a worst case scenario if the
world went mad and the Uruguay Round didn't work. You
may have to look at whether within this framework you
have the capacity to adjust yourself to that imposed
reality. Now but don't let there be misinterpretation
of what I'm saying. We will continue to fight harder
than anyone else to get a positive outcome in the Uruguay
Round for the freeing up of international trade. It's
only in what: I hope is not the outcome, I guess it could
be, but it's only in that situation, if it breaks down
and you see a dissent in the trading blocs, that we will
have to therL make the decisions which are necessary to
protect the interests of Australia as far as you can in
that situation. And that's..
8
LYNEHAM: You're going off to Sydney for Hazel at the
Opera House tonight I gather.
PM: Hazel at the Opera House. Yes.
LYNEHAM: Any nerves?
PM: I've probably got more than she has. I spoke to her
this morning. She sounded pretty confident. I'm very
proud of her.
LYNEHAM: Thanks very much.
PM: Thanks.
ends