PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL BARBER, RADIO 3AW, 28 MARCH 1995
E& OE PROOF COPY
PB: Prime Minister, good afternoon.
PM: How are you, Paul?
PB: I'm okay, thanks, but you're a man under siege at the moment.
PM: Oh well, that happens to Prime Ministers from time to time it's an
occupational hazard.
PB: You can wear it?
PM: Well, I have in the past.
PB: Can you understand why people call you arrogant and unwilling to
listen?
PM: Well, I mean, let's not mistake what people mean. If it's arrogant to
have pride in what you're doing and want to get the things done, then
that's a label I suppose I have to wear. But, I mean, I've been here for
26 years and I've seen a succession of Prime Ministers pass the parcel
on all the big hard issues of Australia, that is, opening it up, making it
competitive, reducing a contestable economy inside a country,
breaking the back of decade-long inflation.
PB: So, what, you're determined to be better than any of the other previous
Prime Ministers?
PM: Well, I'm determined at least when it's all over, whenever that is for
me, to say that I never shirked the big ones.
PB: Are you the best Prime Minister in your 26 years?
PM: Well, just get this point about arrogance, I mean, there are other
people here who, I mean, my argument is, I suppose, don't mistake
pride in one's craft and getting things done. I mean, you look at the
last couple of weeks. There's the Native Title Act seven votes to
zero, seven Judges to zero on the High Court. There's the Land Fund
Bill passed. There's 91,000 job growth last month. I mean, the
economy is growing at 5 per cent and we've had just on 4 per cent
employment growth. I mean, they're real, I mean, you understand,
they're real things and to get the real things done, if you throw the
fights up here or be soppy, let everybody tread all over you in the
system, then the Australian public lose out.
PB: Yes, but with respect, I mean, what is more important this is what the
critics are saying Mabo and the Republic, or a fragile economy and
interest rates? It appears to be interest rates is the thing....
PM: No, but it's not fragile. Understand this I mean, the economy, if
anything, has been too strong. I mean, that's why the interest rates
were increased in November and December because the economy
was running too strongly.
PB: Except you're being forced to bring in a tough Budget next month?
PM: But, what would you rather be handling? A strong economy with low
inflation or the thing that I was handling back in 1991/ 92 of a recession
and trying to get out of it? I mean, we're growing faster than any other
country in the world with low inflation and we've got a couple of
problems. But I would rather be attending to problems in the context of
high growth. I mean, the Government was rehired and
recommissioned in 1993 to start growth and employment. I mean, you
give me that, that the main thing in the election was employment, was
it not? Well, here we are, we are now at 590,000 jobs since the
election. We are 90,000 jobs passed the Government's 500,000 target
which we achieved in two years, not three. You know, I think, we've
had this dreadful sort of debate running the sky's going to fall in,
interest rates have risen, we're all ruined, it's all over where in fact,
you know, I walked around western Europe a couple of weeks ago as
the only head of government in the western world able to say that
we're growing at 5 per cent with 2 per cent inflation.
PB: But you told them how to improve their architecture.
PM: No, I didn't that's again another bit of urban myth.
PB: You told them how to improve their economy?
PM: No, no.
PB: Signs of arrogance?
PM: No, you get asked, you get asked. I mean, if you go to Europe where
the rates of growth are 2 per cent and the employment growth is threequarters,
I mean, are there no things Australians are proud of? I
mean, do you really think, Paul, we ought to have the cultural cringe to
the point where European growth is 2 per cent and employment growth
is about three-quarters of a per cent, and we've got 5 per cent growth
and 4 per cent employment growth and you should shut up about it?
Oh, I won't mention that, oh no, I'm not going to tell you we're growing
well. No, no, I will definitely not tell you we've got 4 per cent
employment growth because it might look like that we're telling you
how to run your affairs you get asked.
PB: Well, this comment today you made about you didn't want to be locked
into a mortgage grindstone. Well, you mightn't want to be, but I mean,
millions of Australians, they haven't got any choice.
PM: No, but understand what I said. I said, my opponents believe that they
can reduce the whole national debate of Australia down to simply a
discussion only about interest rates. In other words, Australia's place
in the world, APEC Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation opening up
markets in this part of the world, changing training and retraining in
Australia through Working Nation, getting the arts into the high-tech
end of multimedia, or the Republic, or Mabo, or any of these things
should all go out the window and the only discussion we should have
should be about interest rates despite the fact that we've had the
largest fall in unemployment in any one year in our history last year.
PB: But isn't that the message from the massive rejection you got in the
Canberra by-election? I mean, what lesson is to be learnt?
PM: Well, I don't know that that's the sole message. Well, the Canberra
by-election was a complex election. I mean, we had a 10 percentage
point shift from the Labor Party to the Liberal Party in the ACT
Assembly elections. Now, part of that is to do with the fact that
Canberra used to be funded Federally, and generously funded, and
when the ACT moved to Statehood funding under the Grants
Commission, it's now had three or four years of very large reductions
in Commonwealth payments to the ACT. The local community hate the
sight of the Assembly up here, and I think Rosemary Follett unfairly
carried that burden. Now, that's obviously....
PB: Did you have the wrong candidate as well?
PM: That obviously switched across to the Federal by-election as well as
the, what you may call, national influences which were there, which I
accept were there.
PB: But you see, you've just called those voters, today, Canberra fat cats.
PM: Who did?
PB: You.
PM: When?
PB: This afternoon. I did not at all. Where did you get that from?
PB: I was told that after the reception for Mr Havel that you described them
as fat cats.
PM: Well, you are quite wrong about that.
PB: Well, I apologise if I'm wrong ( inaudible)
PM: I mean, this is the thing, I mean, we've got this sort of low-grade media
debate which runs on scuttlebutt and nonsense. I mean, you know,
you're talking to a Government here who's doing things in social terms
employment and growth. Look, you know the Liberals couldn't beat
inflation. Ten years we had double digit inflation. You know, that was
one of the nasty jobs that was left to me. That's why we've got now
comparatively low interest rates. You've still got interest rates around
9-10 per cent out there in the commercial world.
PB: It's not just the media, I mean, take Graham Richardson. I mean, has
he really become a Judas? You described him as taking the 30 pieces
of silver has he really become a Judas?
PM: Well, Graham can't represent himself as a Labor person giving Labor
comment when he is being paid to represent a network.
PB: Has he ratted on the Party though?
PM: Well, look, that's for other people to make a judgement about.
PB: Oh, what, you can make that judgement?
PM: Well, yes I can. But I'm not making it for you.
PB: Why not?
PM: Because it doesn't suit me to.
PB: He hasn't ratted on you?
PM: Just go on to other things. Look, I can talk about any number of
commentators I could move through half the Press Gallery if you
wanted me to.
PB: And what? ( inaudibie)
PM: Well, there's just no product in it. I mean, there's no product. We're in
the middle of this sort of debate which is seeking to deny the
undeniable, and that is, that Australia's economy has been, if anything,
too strong and that the Government has taken the right action at the
right time to slow it down. As I said a couple of weeks ago, those
interest rate rises have been done to protect people's jobs in the
longer run the guarantee that there's a recovery that goes on right
through the 1990s.
PB: Alright, well, Prime Minister, Caucus today, what was it like going into
the lion's den? They're pretty ( inaudible)
PM: Well, it wasn't a lion's den at all. That's another bit of hype and
nonsense, you see. It wasn't a lion's den.
PB: Did they all get up and applaud you when you walked in?
PM: No, they were fine. They were like they were every other meeting and
I gave them my thought, I addressed the issues of the week, and the
issues of this week include the by-election loss, and I addressed them
I thought directly and frankly.
PB: You've got this Sylvia Smith from Bass threatening to resign because
( inaudible)
PM: Well, there's always some comment. You get a Caucus of nearly a
hundred people, you are always going to get someone say something.
PB: Well, have you hosed her down?
PM: No.
PB: What if she resigns?
PM: She's not resigning, I mean, where did you get that nonsense from? I
mean, do you just think this stuff up, Paul? Do you work at it or does it
just come naturally? I mean, you know, do you sit up there, I mean,
what do they put in your coffee, down there?
PB: I'm drinking water here at the moment, actually.
PM: You've obviously got a mickey finn in the coffee.
PB: I'm not dreaming this stuff up. You know that she is threatening to
resign over ( inaudible)
I
PM: She's not threatening to resign at all. She passed a critical comment,
but so what? She's entitled to have her view.
PB: What lessons have you learnt then from NSW and from Canberra on
Saturday?
PM: Well, from NSW there is one lesson and that is the John Howard
lesson. He said it is completely critical to the future of the federal
coalition that John Fahey win in NSW. Well, one lesson out of that is
they lost, or it seems they have lost and it looks like Bob Carr will form
a Government that is one lesson. Out of the ACT I think there are
multiple lessons.
PB: Just before we go onto Canberra, even there you have got members of
your own faction saying they would have won much more easily or Bob
Carr would have won much more easily had it not been for you.
PM: Yes, well that is a bit of analysis, but all the people that give us the
analysis have not won an election themselves.
PB: But, this is your own faction.
PM: I know, they are not all wise. They may all be inclusive Paul, but they
are not all uniformly wise about deciphering election results.
PB: Yes, but the NSW Right falling apart, I mean you have got Carr,
Loosley, Della Bosca, all of you sniping at each other.
PM: No, no, I just think that it is never really right that the public will never
accept one part of a party denying the other. It was like when Joan
Kirner was in her last days as Premier, she was never denied by me.
Because I think the notion of saying ' oh look, they are in the Labor
Party but they are not ours' people say ' come off it, don't be so
dishonest, of course they are yours'. So you go together for good or ill,
you go together.
PB: Do you regret that Ros Kelly went when she did?
PM: Obviously, if she hadn't have gone we wouldn't have had a by-election.
So, we would have been better off.
PB: Are you disappointed that she put her interests before the interests of
the party?
PM: There is another thing here. Look, the Government has won five
elections and at every election there is always somebody that moves
out. In this cycle we had John Kerin and we had Neal Blewett and the
system has got to be able to let people go and bring other people in.
The Government is substantially renewed with a big influx of new and
young members including over half of the ministry having changed
since the last election. There has got to be some process where that
happens. Now occasionally, in the transition, as is the case here, the
public will take hold of an issue or a set of issues and give you a
message.
PB: But you reckon you can win the public back despite what the polls are
showing?
PM: I think so, because I think this is the Government of post war change in
Australia. This is the Government that broke the back of Australian
inflation. This is the Government that opened Australia up to the world
by removing the tariff walls.
PB: Is it the best government you have seen?
PM: Well, it is the best of the ones I have belonged to and it is certainly the
most conscientious and effective government in the years I have been
in public life which is 26 now. Look, the thing is, let me just make a
little point to you. One of the things I was able to say to Helmut Kohl,
you know the European Community have the Treaty of Maastricht, you
have heard of it?
PB: Yes.
PM: It has terms and conditions tough terms and conditions about who
can join the European Monetary Union with the Deutschmark with
Germany. At the moment there are two countries which can qualify
only two Luxemburg and Australia. Now, it says something about us
doesn't it? That we can meet the toughest economic convergence
criteria, probably in the world, to join in what would be were we to be
Europeans in the Deutschmark area. So, I think Australians should
understand that this quite malicious debate that John Howard and the
Liberal party are running, that there is something wrong with the
economy and that we have had five minutes of sunshine. We have
had three years of growth 36 months of growth, 12 quarters of growth
and will go on having growth and the whole claim is fallacious and
untrue.
PB: Yes, but there again, you see I am sure that half of the people listening
to me at the moment, whilst they might think ' oh well, it is a feather in
your cap there to be able to give a bit of advice to the " old Koh lie" over
there' on the other hand they are saying ' hang on a sec, Keating
should be back here doing something about interest rates.'
PM: No, what I was doing, well, I was over there doing something about
interest rates. I was over there at the CeBIT fair where we were the
guest country with 170 companies, high technology companies, on
exhibit. I was over there trying to inculcate in the European business
mind that Australia is a high technology country and given the fact we
had this great opportunity to be the guest country at the largest
information and communications fair in the world, I took the opportunity
to go and drive that message home so that as we export now, higher
value added, and we wrote tens of millions of business coming out of
that and we will, no doubt, build relationships now for years to come.
When we write those higher technology values in and their higher
exports, you write down any attendant pressure on you for interest
rates. I mean, you have got to understand this, that Australia's way for
the last ten years out of its difficulties, is by exports and by product and
it doesn't just happen with the wave of a wand. You have got to
basically earn your place in these markets and if the Prime Minister of
Australia is not interested to make the point in the largest market in
Europe that Australia is a competent, high technology country, but
rather sit back here and do radio programs talking about interest rates,
I mean, there is not much of a judgement to be made there is there?
PB: Will you completely rule out an election for this year?
PM: I get asked these questions by journalists and I take no notice of them.
Why would any Prime Minister give up any option he or she enjoys?
PB: So you are just going to say nothing about it?
PM: No, just that I will do, I will give you my general view on this. All last
year I had this claim made firstly by Dr Hewson, then by Mr Downer
and more laterly by others, that the Government is about to have an
early election. We were never having an early election. Never ever.
The reason I don't believe in early elections is, [-think, the public want
value from the political system. They want the government to get on
and do the work and not run tricky polls against them.
PB: All right and will they need time to, the public, will they need time to
absorb what appears as going to be a pretty tough budget?
PM: I don't think time, but understanding of what the Government has done
to preserve the recovery and to keep it going. I think that is the
important thing. The important thing is that you look people in the face
and say ' look, we did all the things we thought we needed to do to
keep your jobs secure and to give another member of your family a
job.' Now, as I said to you, we have had this remarkable number
590,000 jobs since the 1993 election. Our opponents were saying,
when we mentioned 500,000 in the election, they were laughing and
going on. John Hewson told us we would have a double dip recession
and then a depression. Remember those ads, the gun sight adds that
were on television, how through the gun sight we were going to shoot
people out of jobs. Well, we have shot people into 590,000 jobs.
PB: All right, this good news you are telling me now, are you going to make
a stronger effort, if I can put it that way, this year to sell your message
more than you have in the past?
PM: One thing the Canberra by-election has brought home is this sort of
doom saying and this dishonesty that Howard and his cohorts are
running, that we have just had five minutes of economic sunshine and
it is all shutting down. It is completely untrue. It is a distortion. It is
completely untrue and the fact that it ever had any currency is to be
regretted. So, obviously the Government will make a bigger effort to
make sure that people understand that they have, for the first time in
years, a strong low inflation recovery with high productivity.
PB: I know you have got to go so just a couple of quick ones. I am sure
you would describe John Howard as ' recycled' but are you none the
less surprised by the good impression that he is making so far,
particularly in the polls?
PM: I don't think he is making an impression in policy. I think what's
happened is
PB: People like him though.
PM: I think what happened is this. That consumer sentiment turned down
when interest rates changed. They thought ' hello, there is something
going on here' and that was right at the time that he came to office and
he has just surfed his way along that wave. But he has got nothing to
say. You couldn't identify one policy with him and he believes that if
he makes himself as small as possible a target and says nothing until
the next election, he can win. Well, I think the Australian public have
walked way past that. They don't want no policy change governments.
They don't want policy free zones. They want change. They want it
explained. They want you to be in there doing their bidding for them
and doing their work for them. That gets me back to the principal
thing: what was I principally asked to do at the last election? That was
to start growth and employment again with low inflation and that is
what I have done in full measure.
PB: Another quick one, and you are probably aware of this anyway, but
have a listen to this Mr Murdoch speaking on ' 60 Minutes' the other
night -" Question: Would you do business with John Howard"
Murdoch " Absolutely, I don't want to do any business with him and I
don't want to do any business with Paul Keating. Do I think John
Howard would be a good Prime Minister of this country? I think it
would depend on can he control his back benchers who don't look to
me like conservatives or anything other than to me moderate Labor
politicians, half of them. But, John Howard if can be the John Howard
we have been hearing from for the last five years, he might present a
very real alternative and a good one. On the other hand you have got
say about Paul Keating, that he is one of the very few strong leaders in
the world today. You couldn't use all the fingers of one hand to say
who lead their countries and are strong, why, and know what they are
doing and are on top of their own political scenes". Would I be right in
suggesting that you would sooner have lunch with Rupert Murdoch at
the moment than Kerry Packer?
PM: Not necessarily, it is just that I think Rupert Murdoch does meet many
heads of government in Europe and in north America. He has got a
business that operates in the United States and in Europe. He owns
The London Times. He had got major assets in the United States. He
has interests in Europe and he has interests in the Asia-Pacific. So,
he makes his own judgements and that is a matter for him. But, being
an international company, I suppose those international comparisons
spring to mind.
PB: A final question, I asked it earlier on. Are you the best Prime Minister
we have ever had?
PM: Well, I will certainly be, you could say this about me. I will never have
gone home of a night, ever throwing a policy fight. The public can
know about me and say at least when the big issues are on, this
character will actually represent us. In those late Cabinet meetings or
in the discussions or in any of the economic debates or the social
debate, I will be in there doing the things that other governments in the
past shirked. Whether it be in the big issues like land rights and Mabo
or whether it be in breaking the back of inflation or whether it be in
training and retraining or any of these issues I won't be in there
throwing the fight. Now, I think that is the thing the important thing to
me is to be a good Prime Minister rather than be someone out there
chasing cheers.
PB: So, you are the best Prime Ministerial fighter we have had?
PM: Well, don't try to put words in my mouth Paul, don't be too obvious
about all this.
PB: I am looking for a headline.
PM: I know you are. The fact that I am on your program is important to you,
I think.
PB: All right, I am very appreciative of that. It has been a long wait, but it is
good to have you on. I hope you will come on again.
PM: OK, thank you very much.
PB: That's a deal is it?
PM: Well, I think it is.
PB: Good on you. Thanks very much.
PM: It's not too bad, I mean, they do put something in the coffee there. But
all things considered, it is reasonable enough.
PB: Thanks for your time.
PM: Good, thank you.
ends