PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL MURPHY, " DATELINE", SBS TV, 17 FEBRUARY
1996 E& OE PROOF COPY
J: Prime Minister, welcome to Dateline.
PM: Thank you, Paul.
J: If I can start with foreign policy which is as close to your heart,
of course, as domestic matters and can I start first with Indonesia?
Now the recent treaty/ agreement that you negotiated was done in
secret, nobody knew anything about it, the voters didn't, and no
Parliamentary scrutiny and now your critics say, ' It was undemocratic'.
Why do it that way?
PM: Well they are all done that way and the Liberal Party would have
people I mean they couldn't have done it and they wanted everyone
to think that there was then something wrong with it. In fact, you might
recall, that one of the things I said when I challenged Bob Hawke was
I wanted to put the relationship with Indonesia on a proper footing.
It is our largest nearest neighbour. Their security outlook has great
similarities with our own and in proposing this idea to
President Soeharto and the two of us having thought about it over
time, we needed time and he needed time to discuss this with the
army, with the defence forces there.
In other words, this is not something that can be negotiated in public
and in this country we have elections every three years you give a
Government a mandate. Our mandate was closer integration with
East Asia and particularly with Indonesia. All this is within the
mandate.
J: But what does it actually mean, the military aspect of it? Does it mean,
for instance, that Australians might find themselves in potential trouble
spots like East Timor, Aceh, Irian Jaya?
PM: No, I think, it means that we are declaring, first of all, trust in one
another. More than anything else, it is a declaration of trust to say that
Indonesia has no territorial designs on Australia and vice versa.
And not only do we trust one another, but we do recognise that we
have a common strategic outlook and that we will consult if our
security interests are threatened.
J: Well what is in it for the Indonesians?
PM: I think what is in it for them is knowing that the largest continental
power near it is a declared friend, so much so that it has a treaty of
security common between us, common to us, and that it will take from
us what it thinks it has in our maturity in foreign policy, in our defence
structure, in our strategic outlook, in our strategic judgements.
I think it gets all of that.
J: Does it mean that we are a bit more cautious in criticising Indonesia on
their human rights record?
PM: No, it doesn't mean that all. I think this, again, is the benefit of a
quality relationship, a real relationship, rather than just a thin foreign
policy relationship is that you can speak about all of the difficult issues
and I have always done this with President Soeharto.
J: A bit of a sidelight, the democratic politician in Hong Kong, Martin Lee,
has said that you ' put trade before human rights'.
PM: That is completely untrue and we have supported Christopher Patten
in his democratic attempts at democratisation, though I will say for the
British, at exactly one minute to midnight, they had 100 years of course
to do some of this and didn't do it. But wherever someone wants to
keep democratic structures or improve them, of course, we are always
supporting them and we have supported him in Hong Kong.
J: Now your thrust into Asia, especially APEC, is very obvious. Although
you say, of course, we are Australians, we are not Asians, but we are
part of the region and the Opposition seems to go along with that and
yet Alexander Downers says, that you seem obsessed with Asia at the
expense of Europe and the rest of the world.
PM: Yes, well, of course, this is just code for them keeping their old
allegiances and while we, in the Government, have good relationships
better than good with the United States. We are one of its, I think,
key partners in the region and also with Europe. This is where we live.
per cent of our exports go to the Asia-Pacific. This is the place
where we have to find our future and they are very uncomfortable
about that. They want security from Asia. The Labor Government
wants security in Asia.
J: Right.
PM: And there is all the world of difference in security from Asia and
security in Asia.
J: But how seriously do the Asians, and particularly giants like China,
take us?
PM: I think seriously indeed, Paul. Just take APEC. Before APEC there
was no forum where the Chinese leadership would meet the Japanese
leadership, or the Korean leadership, or any one of them would meet
others. The one forum which has been developed Australia has had a
major role in and that is APEC. When I first proposed that we should
develop a Heads of Government body, very few people gave it a
chance. But gradually we built a consensus for it and President Clinton then
issued the invitation and the first meeting was held in Seattle, the
second in Indonesia, and the third in Osaka. As a consequence, we
have now built the primary and I emphasise primary piece of
political architecture in the Asia-Pacific for the region. And I think
China appreciates that, I think the Japanese appreciate that, I think the
Indonesians appreciate that.
J: Even Dr Mahathir? Because your relations are now correct, if not
warm, but he still wants his EAEC his Caucus and, of course, he
doesn't want us in that.
PM: Well the EAEC, so called, has never met. But, I think, the Malaysians
take the view too that APEC offers such opportunities. And the thing
about it is, Paul, not just economic opportunities. When you have a
set of leaders for instance, before the Osaka meeting, President
Jiang Zemin of China visited South Korea.
Now it is very hard to imagine, you know, the President and Chief of
the military of China visiting South Korea and I spoke to him about it.
And a large part of that is APEC. He sees President Kim Young Sam
at APEC meetings, they sit beside one another, they speak, so why not
visit? In other words, APEC is changing the whole strategic
environment.
J: Okay, and you are saying that you are having quite an influence with
Asian leaders. You also have said that they have no interest in
dealing with John Howard. Now who has told you that?
PM: Well just examine this point. Do Muoi, the Leader of Vietnam, the
General Secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party, who is turning
Vietnam into a market economy, visited this country, his first visit ever
to the West.
John Howard would not see him. Tim Fischer wouldn't see him.
Alexander Downer wouldn't see him. And I accompanied him along
the Queensland coast for two days, because they have a lot of bauxite,
took him to see the aluminium smelters, took him to see the tourism
projects. He was continually being embarrassed by questions:
Why won't Mr Howard see you? And some other ASEAN leaders have
asked me: Why didn't Mr Howard see Do Muoi?
J: Which leaders?
PM: Well I am not here to tell you all the conversations I have, but I assure
you it was noticed because they are full members of ASEAN and when
Mr Howard decided not to meet the leadership of a full member of
ASEAN, this raises eyebrows around the region. Paul, I made this
clear in this remark, of course the leadership of the region would see
the Australian Prime Minister whoever that might be. But what the
Australian Prime Minister has got to be able to do is to get them to
deal, in this case, with him.
J: And you are saying you can do that better than John Howard?
PM: Well, I think, that is proven to be the case.
J: Look, just on another related topic. Australia has been excluded from,
or not invited to, the Asia-European Union's Summit. Does that
concern you?
PM: Not particularly, Neither Gareth Evans, nor 1, put very great store in
this. I think the first meeting will be a get-to-know-you meeting..
I think the likelihood is the region would like us at the second. This
has certainly been the view of Japan and that is fine, we would be
happy to go along. I
J: And now you see, just before we go to domestic issues, APEC
building, getting stronger all the time and particularly our relationship
with China being of principal importance?
PM: Well, Paul, what is happening in East Asia is without precedent in
history. When you think of the wealth of the 19th century and the
industrial revolution, the English who built abbeys for themselves
across the English countryside, the great American families the
Camnegies, the Melons, the railway barons, the coal barons, the Fricks
it came from relatively small populations, you know, 15 million or so
in Britain, 50 or 60 million in the United States.
There is 2.5 billion people in Asia. The economies are growing at 8
and 10 per cent a year. It is going to be a wealth phenomenon
unprecedented in human history and we are in the middle of it.
And to not understand that, to say that we are obsessed with it as
Mr Downer says, or to be looking as Mr Howard says to Whitehall and
to Washington and not understanding that we are in the centre of the
biggest growth phenomenon in history..
J: Yes.
PM: is not to be able to lead this country properly.
J: Okay, Prime Minister, let's turn to domestic matters and plenty has
been happening in the past few days. But, overall, this is a
competition of promises, expensive ones too, and I know you have
been asked this before and it may irritate you, but why won't you throw
open the books as your opponents are asking you so that we can see
whether a surplus really does exist?
PM: Well let me just put the question this way. Let's say it was a November
election, the Budget is introduced into Parliament in October and it is
passed in November, so what would we do in a November election
go and re-do the whole Budget, wind the Treasury up into another
huge forecasting round? You know, would the Budget, just two months
old, not be good enough?
So what does that tell us? It tells us there should be a principle here
and the principle here should be the publication of the forward
estimates of receipts and outlays, publication of the forward estimates
of the Budget balance, and the within year reconciliations and at the
appropriate time because the forecasting round is a very large
undertaking, it takes a long time and it requires huge resources.
And let's say with this election, I called it for 2 March. From the day
I called it to the development of a forecasting round, the election would
just about be over probably over before it was complete.
J: But can you fund your promises? Are you confident of what Treasury
has been telling you and Ralph Willis and Mr Beazley?
PM: When I was the Treasurer, I was the first Treasurer in history ever to
produce a Budget surplus. I produced four of them. Mr Willis has
produced this Budget surplus and the Budget, in prospect, for the
out-years is in surplus.
By contrast, Mr Howard left me, as Treasurer, the equivalent today of a
Budget deficit of $ 22 billion.
J: He says you exaggerate that.
PM: Well it was 4 1/ 2 per cent of GDP. Go and pick up the Treasury
documents from 1983/ 84. 4 1/ 2 per cent of GDP. GDP this year, Paul,
is $ 520 billion. What is 4 1/ 2 per cent of $ 520 billion about
$ 22 billion.
J: Okay.
PM: So, in other words, in his sly trickiness he sat mum on the real
numbers in the critical days of an election campaign and then left the
Government of the day, us, saddled with a $ 22 billion problem.
J: He is saying that you might be sitting mum in the same way?
PM: But what is the debate whether the Budget is in surplus or not, not
$ 22 billion in deficit. I mean the debate is a joke of a debate. I mean
he is out there saying, ' I will legislate to stop this'. I said yesterday it is
like Ronald Biggs saying he won't rob trains anymore. I mean this is a
man who has the singular distinction of producing the largest fiscal
deterioration in the history of our federation.
J: These 100 very wealthy, allegedly, tax avoiders who will net you
$ 800 million, I think, extra in revenue. Why suddenly discover them
during a campaign?
PM: Because we gave the Tax Office the resources to do enhanced audits
and surveillance of individuals and ran these massive computer
programs to find the commonality of these hundreds of trusts.
Some taxpayers have six or seven hundred trusts, ostensibly all
independent and different and not having common names.
It is not easy, Paul, and the Tax Office found that and first notified the
Government first notified the Government in November.
So we have taken the obvious steps. It took John Howard three years
to deal with tax avoidance and in the 1970s and the early 1980s, the
tax avoidance wasn't avoidance, it was criminal evasion and it took
him three years to do something about it and he only did it when he
had a Royal Commission report around his ears.
J: You have made the point this week that we have got a growing
economy. Do you fear that inflation will take off and, the old cycle
again, you will have to raise interest rates?
PM: No. Well, Paul, let me just go back to what we promised last election.
We would start growth. What have we had on average for three
years, 4 1/ 2 per cent. We said we would go to 500,00 jobs.
What have we got to 713,000. We said we would produce low
inflation. What have we had 2 1/ 2 per cent. In other words, we have
had the trifecta and been right at the top of the western world league
table.
J: And yet that awful problem of youth unemployment remains. What can
you do about that?
PM: Let's try and get this into perspective again because there is so much
confusion put about it. There are 1.3 million young Australians
between the age of 15 and 19. 88,000 now are out of work. That is
6.78 per cent.
J: It is a lot.
PM: I know, but it is not 30 per cent. What the Liberals try and imply is that
per cent of the 15 to 19 year olds are out of work. It is only
per cent when I say, only, it is 20-odd per cent which is again
too high of the group looking for work.
J: Yes.
PM: But if you take it as a group there is 1.3 million young Australians in
the 15 to 19 group, the numbers looking for work are less than the
unemployment rate in the general population.
J: So you can assure parents, concerned parents, desperately
concerned parents, that you are going to get results on this?
PM: Well young people are taking jobs up at a rate of knots, Paul, and we
are getting there were 158,000 young people 15 to 19 unemployed
when John Howard left office. There are 88,000 this day, this month.
Now, I think, those clear statistics make it very clear. But the more
general point is there are 1.3 million young Australians in this group
and 6.78 per cent are unemployed.
J: Prime Minister, how do you answer the jibe from many critics, not just
your political opponents, that 13 years hard Labor is long enough?
That even your Cabinet must be tired and jaded, even possibly
yourself?
PM: Well over half the Cabinet were not there three years ago.
The Government is, in fact, four years old. It was a new Government
when I became Prime Minister, with a new policy direction and we
used the opportunity in 1993 to turn over half the Cabinet. In fact, in
1983 the average age of the Government was 47 years.
Now, 13 years on, the average age is still 47 years and why is it still
47 years, because so much new blood has come into the Government,
come into the Cabinet.
J: Sure, but then how do you counteract that feeling that might well be
out there in the electorate, give John Howard a go?
PM: Yes, a change.
J: Why not give him a go because that wily old campaigner and former
colleague of yours, Graham Richardson, thinks that they are coasting
to victory?
PM: Well they say a change, time for a change. But a change to what?
To John Howard, to Tim Fischer, to Alexander Downer, to
Peter Costello, to Bronwyn Bishop?
J: So you are saying there is no reason to change?
PM: I mean how could anyone believe that John Howard, and Tim Fischer,
and Alexander Downer, and Peter Costello, and Bronwyn Bishop
would run this country and understand the issues better than I, who
have been there in a ministerial office for this time; Kim Beazley, my
Deputy; Gareth Evans, the Foreign Minister; Ralph Willis, the
Treasurer. I mean there is something very valuable here and, I think, the nation
will be very careful before they destroy it for something of much less
value.
J: Do you think the nation is getting sick of your personal style? I mean
I know you think that arrogance is a stupid charge, but I mean do you
think they are getting sick of it?
PM: Well it is a stupid charge. I mean real arrogance is not showing
people your policies, not telling people what you will do and that is
what Mr Howard has shown right through the period he has been
Opposition Leader. ' I won't show that Mr Keating my policy', he says.
But I only get one vote, Paul. What he is really doing is not showing
the Australian people and that is real arrogance. I mean that is rancid
arrogance and it may suit the Liberals to say, ' They don't like my
debating style'. But my democratic style is exceptionally democratic.
And you know the day before yesterday when I said, we would have a
plebiscite to see whether Australians wanted an Australian Head of
State, wanted an Australian person as their Head of State...
J: And yet Bill Hayden says we have got one already?
PM: Mr Howard said it was cheap populism. In other words, if we ask each
Australian elector to cast a vote, it is cheap. But we have 300 people
appointed by him, locked in a room, as a convention, that is all
democratic.
J: But he says your plebiscite is just a toy one.
PM: Well they always have these elite, anti-democratic sentiments.
What I am trying to say to you is we put our policies out there, we
explain ourselves, if we want to move to something like a republic we
will ask the nation. It is the biggest poll you could ever have. It is the
most democratic expression you could ever give and for Mr Howard to
say it is cheap, reflects I think very poorly on him.
J: Alright, Prime Minister. Let's get on to multicultural ism and, of course,
that has been much in the news over the past few days and
immigration and, of course, it means recognising the marvellous
diversity of Australia. But how do you allay the fears of some
Australians, dare I suggest it Graeme Campbell, that in some way it is
a fad?
PM: I think the event of great significance to Australia in this century has
been the post-war migration program. It has made Australia a
stronger, more diverse, more interesting, more vibrant place. It has,
if anything, strengthened our own democratic fabric and what the
Coalition did this week, in terms of their costings, in terms of their cuts,
they are going to take about 10 per cent of their total cuts
$ 600-odd million off migrants, off the children of migrants.
Mr Howard says he is a family man, but he is not for the dependants of
migrants and after a couple of years here, migrants slip into the same
unemployment patterns as the rest of the country. So why would you
not support them with Social Security or unemployment benefits if
other than for callous reasons? Why wouldn't you support their
children? Why are they now altering the family reunion category so
now they are making English a prime requirement for family reunion?
That means for most families, a lot of families, that mothers and
fathers, and sisters, and brothers, will not be joining them here.
J: Right and, of course, none of this you would do, all your commitments
will stay the same. You don't think you are being a bit savage on
Mr Howard though do you?
PM: Oh, well, Paul, let me just go to the details, let me not leave you with
any impression that 370,000 people born outside Australia take a
new job. Under Mr Howard, they are to end up in jobs with poor pay
and conditions and there will be no alternative support in the Social
Security system.
per cent of Mr Howard's savings, a huge part of his Budget, relies
on attacking these most vulnerable people, that is those who have
been here for less than two years and their children.
On immigration he is saying that he ' would be much tougher in respect
of imposing an English language requirement across the board for the
concessional family component', making it much tougher for families to
reunite and the funding for citizenship education he will slash by
$ 16 million.
So you have got the candidate in Leichhardt for the National Party in a
derogatory remark saying that they are de-wogging ceremonies and
then you have in the expression of their Budget cuts, $ 16 million being
cut away for citizenship. In other words, they won't be encouraging
citizenship. At the same time if people are here, they will attack the
cohesion, the social cohesion, and family values of the country by
leaving them to fend for themselves.
J: Okay, well, that is what you are saying. We are coming to the end and
I want to put it to you that you have said that if John Howard were to
win, progress in this country would stop. I mean how can you justify
that?
PM: Because he is always looking backwards. He has no faith, really, in
what we have created here, no belief that Australians can do as good
as anyone else in the world. We are sitting in the highest growth area
of the world, he wants to walk around it. He wants to walk back to the
low growth areas of the world, to Westemrn Europe and to
North America. He just doesn't understand the imperatives of
leadership. He is not thoughtful about the sort of society we ought to
be. He says, for instance, a republic is a diversion where, in fact, it is
completely central to how we see ourselves. That is why I believe a
move to Mr Howard is a step back down the time tunnel.
J: Alright then, Prime Minister, we must leave it there. Many thanks
indeed for coming on to Dateline.
PM: Thank you, Paul.
ends