OOm
NATIONAL 9 NETWORK CANERRA OUReAU
' IKtS GAI. LEKY PACLIANFeT HOUSE CANOERRA
rIOQH: ( 061 Z7) 1300 FAX: ( 061 213 3079
Dite: 31 May 1992 Time: 0900
Source: National Nine Network Program: Sunday
JIM WALEY: After a bold start to his bid to catapult Labor to
a fifth election victory, Paul Keating has lost some of his
momentum of late. The forced resignation of Senator Graham
Richardson, continuing revelations over the Marshall Islands
affair, factional brawling and a Massive budget blow-out all
helping to rob the Prime Minister of the political initiative.
With an election looming it's imperative he get it back
quickly. Time is a luxury Mr Keating simply doesn't have.
The Prime Minister is in our Canberrastudio this morning
and here to talk with him, Sunday's political editor, Laurie
Oakes. Laurie
LAURIE OAKEn: Thanks, Jim. Mr Keating; welcome, back to the
program. PAUL KEATING: Thank you, Laurie.
JLURIE OAKES: Almost a year ago to the day you said on this
program there would be a touch of excitement if you became
Prime Minister. But presumably the sort of excitement you had
in mind wasn't allegations of scandal, ministerial
resignations, factional brawling?
PAUL KEATINQ: We've had, I think, more than a touch of it.
We've taken Federal Labor's stocks from a 28 per cent in the
polls, to around 40, and the One Nation package has totally
re-launched the Federal Labor Party, in terms of issues,
running up to the next election and I wouldn't pretend like
anyone else any other real person in public life that
every week goes swimmingly for you. obviously it doesn't but
the main thing is in this last week we in the Cabinet have
been working on the big issues.
And I might say that the issues we've been working on,
while the opposition have been rabbiting on in the' Senate
about letters and correspondence, we've been looking at a
revolution in aviation and telecommunications and also we've
had on the stocks a long term consideration of the technical
and further education system.
LAURIE 0AKES: I'll ask you about those in a moment but do you
accept that the Government has hit a wall? As you said, you
were going well for a while but you've fallen in a hole
haven't you?
PAUL KEATINjG: I think, Laurie, you've got to make an
impression of these things outside. I believe that a party's
progress builds cumulatively. I think a week of these sort of
things doesn't knock the cumulative effect down. It may
retard one's progress but in terms of the broader sweep I
think the public are a bit smart about all these things.
Look, last weekend -we had Wal rife, the Leader of
Government opposition Busine~ ss in the House of
Representatives, knocked out of his seat under protests by
John Sharp, the Country Party member. We had Durack, Dr
Hewson's shadow Attorney-General, defeated by the Crichton-
Browne faction in Western Australia. We've got similar
problems in the New South Wales selections at the moment. I
mean all parties have these running up to a poll and I think
the media. sort of put a big discount, through the public's
intelligence about these things.
LAURIE OAKES: But you haven't got much time. Do you have a
strategy to get out of the hole, to get back on track?
PAUL KEATING: I mean the strategy for me has always been,
throughout my whole ministerial life, and publ-ic life for that
matter, keeping on pressing on to the structural and major
policy changes. That's~ what I've been doing. This week, when
the journalists ran out of the Senate after each question to
Senator Evans, and out of the, House'. of Representatives, and
2
back to f ile their stories we went back to the Cabinet Room
working on issues of substance.
I didn't spend my week rattling through Senate Hansards.
I spent them going through the policy discussions around the
issues I mentioned to you earlier and looking at ' Cabinet
material around that.
LAURIE OAKES; Let me ask you about some or those issues? You
mentioned aviation. Are we to see a merger of Qantas and
Australian Airlines?
PAUL KEATING: What we're contemplating is the building of an
international competitive aviation market in Australia so that
the interface between international aviation and domestic
aviation is not the broken one it is n6w, but one where the
domestic players are international players. -That'll mean
building at least two international carriers, maybe more.
One of the options we're looking at is the merging or
Qantas and Australian Airlines but, as you know, the
Government intends to sell 100 per cent of Australian and 49
per cent. of Qantas. If we roll the two ifito a meryed entity
it would mean one of the options for us is to sell the value
of 100 per-cent of Australian and 49 per cent of Qantas in the
merged entity, which would probably run out to about 7 0 per
cent of Qantas, which would mean that Qantas would then have a
domestic arm in Australian.
we are setting up a commission by legislation this week
to award routes to other carriers. The other carrier, of
course, in that context would be Ansett. That is to
internationalise another domestic player.
LAURIE OAKES: And where ' does: Air New Zealand fi~ t into this?
Part of your original plan was an integrated aviation market
with New Zealand, was . it not?
PAUL KEATING: That's still part of the plan apd very shortly,
I believe, we'll secure an agreement with cNew Zealand to
create one Australasian airline market and in that we will see
Australian planes and. New Zealand planes more frequently
flying across the Taeman. The question of on-routes outside
of Australia will also be resolved.
so what you'll see, Laurie, is the capacity of
Australians to have a better airline system, cheaper fares and
a rational development or the airlines away from that terrible
two-airline policy, the Liberals saddled us up with for
years and, I might say, which they renewed three weekd before
the 1983 election. Again, Labor's been the only party to
break these arrangements. up and now try and thread its way
through to a really decent, tremendously. competitive
structure. LAURI E OAKES Let me get this straight. You'll sell
something like 70 per cent of a merged airline. why not the
whole lot?
PAUL KEATING:. The options are these: that we have Qantas
acquire Australian; that we sell 49 per cent of the merged
entity. That would mean nothing for the Budget. That would
mean all of the proceeds going back into the recapitalisation
of the merged entity.
The alternative would be to sell down the value of 100
per cent of Australian and 49 per,-cent of Qantas, which -would
be about 70 per cent of Qantas. We could do that by a f loat
to the , Australian peo6ple, as we did with the Commonwealth
Bank, and maybe reserving in that f loat substantial sections
of the shares for other major internAtional airlines who might
wish to take a piece of it and manage it because part of the
weakness of Qantas is-its management structure.
LAURIE OAKES: The two things that arise out of that, of
course, if you're going to sell 70 per cent -why not 100?
You haven't got control, anyway.
PAUL ' KEATING: That is again an. option, but it's. a matter for
the Party then. We have to I think then consider that at a
conference level, whereas we have authority from a year or so
back for 100 per cent of Australian and 49 per cent of Qantas.
LAURIE pARES: The second thin4 " that arises: at that
conference you talk ed About the argument was there's no place
for a government-ow ned, airline in domestic aviation. Now
you're stepping away from that.
PAUL KEATING: well, the point is the synergies which arise
4
from the purchase of Australian by Qantas are quite profound
and if we were to sell down the stock of the value of 100 per
cent of Australian and . the 49 per cent of Qantas, to all
intents and purposes that point I made then would be well and
truly satisfied.
LAURIE OAKES: You also mentioned broadcasting. What's going
to happen to pay television? That's on the Cabinet agenda for
tomorrow as well, is it not?
PAUL KEATING: it is.
LAURIE OAKES: Are we looking at the Richardson plan being put
up by the new Minister?
PAUL KEATING: Graham Richardson was basically moving along
with the policy as it obtained before h6 become the Minister.
what I've said is I've been quite uncomfortable about the fact
that we're about to exclusively nominate satellite television
as the only vehicle for pay television between now and the
year 1999. Particularly when other technologies are
available, like fibre optic cableand MDS -that's local radio
transmission of television into homes. So what I've said to
Bob Collins, and he agrees, is we should look 4t the option of
taking away the e~ eclusivity of satellite transmission of pay
television. In other words, the satellite will still be the
forerunner because it's got a number'of ye~ cris head start
LAURIE OAKES: Yes.
PAUL KEATING: -But there's no particular reason why we ought
to make it exclusive. There's -no particular * reas-on why
Telecom, who has cabled up most of the Australian suburbs at
least to the street corner, if not to the home, that anyone
else ' that wants to be in the pay business shouldn't be able to
be in it.
LAURIE OAKES: Immediately?
PAUL KEATING Well they can't because they; haven't got it
wired up to the homes. so . the' only' immediate, one will be the
satellite and because the satellite is immediate, the
Government is going tQ put on it ownership limits that it
would be less likely to put upon cable-or the local radio
transmission style MDS style pay TV.
LAURIE OA1XE8: So ir you get your way it won't just be a f ourchannel
satellite pay Tv consortium. That will exist, but
anyone else -can get into the business as well once the cable
is there?
PAUL KEATIN4G: There'll be a four-channel consortium.' There
can be another consortium for the separate transponder the
fifth transponder; another one for the sixth transponder;
and anyone else who wants to come with any other technology,
including cable. This of course, Laurie, would virtually
create a revolution in Australian telecommunications and give
Australians You see fibre optics has the capacity to put
200 channels into a house and also to answer back. You could
deal with your bank or deal with your supermarket. Whereas
the satellite can at this stage put only four channels into a
home , and even though there's a thing called digital
compression rattling down the road which may increase that,
it's not going to do in the long run what fibre can do.
I don't believe, having kept the sla te clean can i
just. make this point: We kept, the slate clean on colour
television for years so that Australia in the latter part
chose the right technology. It chose Pal-D. We've kept the
slate clean on pay but at the eleventh hour-. 1 believe we look
like choosing a very limited technology and denying to
ourselves the right to at least choose alternative and maybe
superior technologies. So, you know, I've said to collins I
don't think. this is on. I think he agrees and we're now
trying to construct
That's what I've been doing this week, Laurie. Not
reading Senate Hansards.
LAURIE OAKES: Will that go to Cabinet tomorrow?
PAUL KEATING: it'll go to Cabinet Monday and Tuesday.
LAURIE OAKES: Mr Keating, we'll pause for a commercial break.
PAUL KEATING: Thank you. ,( Commercial break)
LAURIE OAKES: welcome back. Mr Xea~ ing, just to finish off
the pay television issue. what role will the networks have in
this? will there still be a place for them in the consortia?
PAUL KEATIN~ G: They're going to be thrown a difficult
entrepreneurial Choice. They always tell us how good they
are. we'll now see how good they are and they can' make a
decision whether they actually bid for the rour transponders
of f the satellite; just go for a movie channel on the fifth,
or a * sports channel on the sixth; or wait and do something
else on pay.
The one thing is, Laurie, obviously with that diversity
it'll be a case of many are called but few are chosen. The
public will choose few, as has been the case in many other
countries. But at least we shouldn't be locking these
technologies out, which I think the sort of restrictive
approach we had, did. AS you know, we're going over a bit of
old history but I never liked that.
LAURIE QAKES; No. If the networks can get involved, 1 what
restrictions will there be to minimise concentration of
ownership? 4
PAUL KEATINGQ: in terms of the satellite, because there will
now be other technologies the case for restrictions
diminishes. so I think Senator Collins is proposing 45 per
cent all up for the networks and any one level of 20. But
then if the networks of course don't choose -I mean it's very
likely the networks,-or a network, would not choose the
satellite and just let it go to somebody else. and just try
their hand three or four years later, on cable.
LAURIE OAKES; The big issue, though', is still obviously
economic policy and the' big issue in economic policy is
unemployment. I gather Bill Kelty gave you the rounds of the
kitchen on Thursday night about that and told you you couldn't
win the election unless you did something about-that.
PAUL KEATING: No, that sto1ty is' untrue. That'Is j ust a
furphy. We had a debate there about tariffs and the impact of
tariffs but not about''--Bill Kelty knows as well as anybody
what the Government. s done about employmnent. He's on the
Reserve Bank board. He knows we're npw looking at bill rates
of 6k per cent because he's been party to the decision which
reduced interest rates by one per cent. He knows we'Ive got
$ 2.3 billion in the one Nation spending and, as part of the
discussion with the trade unions last Thursday, I went through
the progress of the implementation or One Nation in fhe rail
programs, in the payment to families, in the various other
changes. So I think the ACTU is well aware of that but the
textile, clothing and footwear industries have been beating a
drum about tariffs now for some time. That was picked up by a
few other people but-
LAURIE OAKES: Did you promise to look at some way to cushion
industry's hurt by the lowering of protection?
PAUL KEATING: No. What We said was where we think there have
been maybe unfair trade practices on the part of others, we
would look at that. or, maybe in some areas where better
adjustment programs can be put into place, that perhaps we
could examine that.
LAURIE OAKES: What about youth unemployment? Are you
planning any initiatives there? That's clearly the most
worrying aspect of the whole problem.
PAUL KEATING: I think the most significant thing there is in
technical and further education. live spent the last couple
of weeks with Kim Beazley and John Dawkins and others talking
about this. You see, Laurie, Labor took the participation
rate of kids in secondary school f rom 3 ' in 10 to nearly 8 in
Now, 40 per cent of those or just on 40 -35 to 40 are
now finding tertiary places. The others are. cascading, not
into ' technical and furthe . r education -only some are. They
are just not being trained. I think that's a tragedy and
that's Why in one Nation we try to lirt the whole, if you
like, level and profile of the training institutions through
TAFE. We put this proposition to the St. ates that the
Commonwealth take over TAFE. Frankly, some of the states have
been quite. obstructionist' about this. we're getting
cooperation in Victoria; quite a bit from New South Wales;
virtually none from anyone else.
LAURIE 0AXES: What do you do about that?
PAUL KrATING: Well, I think we have two options: that is
that we will maintain our recurrent effort for the existing
TAFE system. We won't take the dog and the manger appfoach of
pulling out but we will wind our capital program back and the
Commonwealth will itself build a new system of vocational
education. We will build new institutes or vocational education
which have a much closer focus on the labour market and
industry and perhaps do it with industry in areas which are
going to be important. In other words, as we have lifted up
the quality of tertiary education with'the universities, we
can so too do that with a new system of vocational education
while at the same time continuing the recurrent effort but
having a greater grip over the policy the States employ for
the recurrent funding we provide them.
LAURIE OAKES: So you'll run a parallel system to TAFE?
PAUL4 M~ TING: That's one of the olptions. We're still in this
discussion-LAURIE OAKES: A serious option?-
PAUL KEATING: A serious option. We're stii2. in discussions
with them but it is* a serious option because a lot of the
people providing TAFE training are trades persons who stopped
actually practising their trade 15 of 20 ye ars ago. The whole
world's moved on. TAFE's a system provided by the providers.
it's not necessarily a system that looks after Australian kids
trains them for jobs and trains them for things to do. So
we're focussing on that ' and -if we could get a breakthrough
there it would totally revolutionalise education from the
tertiary level down that is beyond compulsory education.
LAURIE OAKES: If we could just finish on general politics, mr
Keating. The Government has been taking a pasting. You've
had Gareth Evans talking about documents going astray in his
office; Ros Kelly blaming her Department for a terrible mess
up. You can't be-very happy with the way your Government's
performing.
PAUIL KEATING: We've had a better week than we've had in the
last couple of weeks, Laurie, obviously, but the day that
Senator Evans's office apparently received these documents was
the day of the attack on the Xranian Embassy. Senator Evans
was himself abroad. I mean requiring of his staffC, weeks
ahead of this becoming an issue, that all of these matters are
referred to referred to. the minister abroad putting him on
notice with it for Issues which then were seemingly of modest
relevance, at the time, is being unfair after the event.
This is what Oppositions are about but the Senate's
trying to behave like a court and the silly notion is that the
Government has actually got an obligation to help Senate
Ministers provide information. I mean we don't, and we won't.
LAURIE OAKES: But aren't you concerned that the Government
looks sloppy?
PAUL KEATING; Yes, but-
LAURIE OAKEO: What do you do about it?
PAUL KEATXNG: * You tell people about the; issues I've just
spoken to you about. You tell people that in the real changes
which the Federal Liberal Party of Australia and the
Country Party and the -National Party never ever contemplated
in television; in airlines, from their a lousy regulated
systems; in education, which they were happy to leave 3 kids
in 10 only complete secondary school, never cared about TArE.
In those things, -again, it's always Labor down to the
substance and that's what we're about.
I mean, the point of me coming on your program the
point of the dissemination of news of public affairs is to
tell Australians ' that on the substance rather than the thim
f lam I mean I'm not the one publishing pamphlets saying that
a GST will stop someone breaking into your house. That sort
of low political nonsense is coming from' Dr Hewson.
The notion that the reason that there's been break-ins is
because of nine years -of Federal Labor Government or, worse,
that you can actually stop a break-in or your house by putting
per cent on your Weetbix. This is the sort of low politics
that this fellow's trafficking in . while the Government's
looking at a revolution in television, aviation and education.
I'll leave it to you to judge, Laurie.
LAURIE OAKES: We're out of time but thanks very much, Prime
minister. PAUL KEATING: Thank you.
LAURIE OAKES: Back to you, Jim~.
JIM WNALEY: The Pri-me m~ inister there, talking with Laurie
Oakes. t JO!