PRIME MINISTERj
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, ARGYLE WOOLSHED, THE HOCKS,
3 NOVEMBER 1989
ZE& O0E-PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the Greiner Government's industrial
package, do you see that as undermining the accord?
PM: well it's based on a totally different philosophy to
the accord and I guess the best thing in politics is not
just to have an ideological harangue about you know, mine's
better than yours, but to look at the record. I simply say
that under the accord these things have happened. Firstly,
we've reduced industrial disputation by 60%. We've had a
rate of job creation which is five times faster than under
the previous policy, which is a reflection of the Greiner
type policy. So that difference is remarkable. we've
created jobs five times faster than the conservatives did,
we're creating jobs more than twice as fast as the rest of
the world, we've increased our competitive position. After
all, it's not surprising because if you have a policy which
is based upon the concept of trying to get employees and
employers to see their shared interests and work
accordingly, it's much more likely to work than one which is
essentially confrontationist in its concept. so I'm
prepared to rest on the record in these matters.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you and Graham Richardson have had
some big wins in terms of the environment vote recently.
Hag John Kerin undone all that in the last week?
PM: No. Let me take the premise of your question and then
answer the question. it's not a point of saying that Bob
Hawke and Graham Richardson have had big wins on the
environment. I mean the winners out of the decisions that
we've taken are Australians. They are the one's that have
won. if you look at those decisions without being
exhaustive about them, putting onto the world heritage list
of the forests in Tasmania, the rainforests in northern
Queensland, Kakadu, if you look at all those things they are
not wins for Richardson or Hawke, what's it really meant is
that our kids today and the kids of the next generations are
being guaranteed by those decisions the opportunity of
enjoying the marvels of our environment and not only our
kids but for the people of the world because we are a world
which is increasingly one where peple move between
countries. So the winners are the future generations. Now
coming to the point about john Kerin, it would obviously be
dishonest of me if I were to say, ' oh, that doesn't make any
difference'. It was a bit unfortunate in the expression
because that would give some sort of impression of some
-2-
( PM cont) basic division in the Government, there isn't.
What you ' ve got to understand is that one of the things that
gets under John Kerin's goat a bit is the sort of thing
we're witnessing at the moment. But there is a sort of
extremism amongst some elements of the conservation movement
and that rather upsets John Kerin. Let Me say this about
Kerin, I know him well, he is a man who is very much
concerned with the environment, he is somewhat concerned
that according to his perceptions some people in the
conservation movement and perhaps some people in the Labor
movement weren't looking, as he saw it, at all the
considerations which must go into a decision, economic
considerations as well as environmental. So the fact that
John expressed things the way he did has probably upset a
few people. But I've had a long yarn wit h John last night
and it was a very cordial yarn and I think that we'll have
no difficulty in maintaining a position of unity and commity
within the Government. Just to conclude what has been a
fairly long answer, but it's an Important question, I've
said in the Parliament this; that I have always regarded the
argument that development on the one hand, environment on
the other, as being necessarily opposed to one another is
not the right way of looking at it. Look at our record,
we've done two things. one, we've had a rate of economic
growth which is twice as fast as it was before, we've
created jobs more than twice as fast as the rest of the
world. So on the development side, we've shown what can
happen. But at the same time as that we have the world
Heritage Bureau coming out and saying that no government has
done more to advance world heritage values than this
government. so you can do both and that's what the secret
of government is in this important area, to listen to the
debate, to allow people to express their views and their
concerns and in the end make the decisions which are going
to give you ecologically sustainable development.
JOURNALIST: breaking one of the basic principles of
Cabinet, though?
PM1: No, Mr Kerin has accepted and does accept the decisions
of Cabinet and he made that clear publicly and he said that
he believes that his position has been misrepresented in. the
media, I'm not blaming the media about that, but he believes
that they haven't got the balance correctly in their
reporting of what he said. He accepts the cabinet
decisions, there's no question about that.
JOURNALIST: Did you tell him then to stop talking about mr
Richardson? FM%: No, I didn't need to say that. He said that he felt
that held made the points he wanted to make and he's not
going to be saying anything more.
JOURNALIST: What your Government's performance in the
Parliament this week?
-3-
PM: Well let me say this, and I'm not avoiding that
question, i can assure you. we've been in government now
for nearly seven years. Everyone knows that for virtually
the whole of that period we've dominated in the Parliament,
we've dominated the political agenda. Now that's not a
proud Prime Minister saying it, that is common knowledge.
Now it is the case that we've had a less than glorious week
and the fact that we have predominated for nearly seven
years has made that sort of aberration the more obvious.
Now we could've done very much better-' this week, all of us,
and I include myself in that. We all could've done very
much better. But let me say this; I'm in one sense not
unhappy because it will show me, it will show my ministers
that we have to be on our toes all the time, We can't take
for granted a permanent ineptitude on the part of the
Opposition. it is a terminal condition for them, they are
basically driven by internal hatred and divisions. As Mr
Howard has said at the beginning of this week, Howard and
Peacock can't trust one another. That's symtematic of their
divisions. But we can't just as a government assume that
these fundamental hatreds and distrusts are going to be
reflected in an easy path for us. So we didn't have a great
week but I can tell you what, we'll murder them in the
months ahead.
JOURNALIST: Are you worried about what the polls say?
PM: Now again# it would be quite dishonest if I were to say
I don't look at the polls or watch them closely, I do. I
would prefer to be in a position of being a little bit
better off in the polls at the moment. But I remind you of
1986, we were in the polls in a much worse position then
than we are now and I tell you what, you watch us between
now and where the election date is concerned. we're in the
Spring Carnival period when everyone's interested in racing
and punting and I'll tell you what, I'll tell you who to
have your money on, mate.
JOURNALIST: Are you worried about your backbmnchers
comments though?
PM: Now am I worried about the backbenchers comments? what
I am a little bit worried about is the standard of
journalism. Now I may say that the Gallery in Canberra's a
little bit upset about that performance. What you do is you
ring up a number of people, you get one to make a comment
and you make a headline out of that about Hawke being a
liability. Well I tell you what, you do a check of my
backbenc hers
JOURNALIST: As a member of the Gallery-
PM: And a very fine member too.
JOURNALIST: You're too kind. What about the Howe-Keating
stuff?
-4-
PM: The Howe-Keating stuff?
JOURNALIST: On the possibility of a
PMt Sure. OK well I'll try to make this as brief as
possible. The question about the comment that was reported
by Brianl Howe earlier in the week about the possibility of a
wage/ tax trade off, I said in the Parliament yesterday that
if you look at the period we've been in government, what
we've done is to have as the basis of economic policy making
an effect ive wages policy. An effective wages policy
involves consultations with the trade union movement. The
essential feature of that has been that the trade union
movement has been prepared to exercise restraint in their
money wage claims on the basis that the Government will
increase and improve the social wage so that that is a
compensation for excessive money wage increases. Now that's
been essentially what's been done and at the appropriate
time within each year we've sat down and talked with the
trade union movement on that basis and that's produced the
sort of results that I've been talking about. Remember
them, a rate of economic growth, twice as fast under us as
under the conservatives in their seven years. A rate of
employment creation five times as fast and 60% reduction in
industrial disputes. Now what will happen as we go into
1990 is that again we will sit down with the trade union
movement and discuss the wages outcome for the following
period and what actions by government are most likely to
ensure a restrained wages outcome and benefits for the
Australian community as a whole. We'll have those
discussions at the appropriate time.
JOURNALIST: Maintaining the high standard of Sydney
journalists, can I ask you a question about this campaign?
How seriously can something like this turn around
Australia's current account problem?
PH: It can make a contribution. As I said in there, I try
to be absolutely honest about it, it's impossible to measure
with precision the impact but the sorts of things that you
can look 17 million people and if every purchaser in the
course of a year makes a deci ' sion which involves say in the
course of a year some $ 300 for an Australian product rather
than the imported product, it adds up to billions of
dollars. That was the point I wasitrying to make at the
end, I do really hope that Australians will say, ' well here
is something which I can do'. this government making
decision. But I as an individual can make a decision which
is going to help Australia's external position. it can be
very important.
JOURNALIST: backbenchers last night, Mr Hawke,
concerned about some of the recent Government decisions.
P14; No, it's not true that I had a delegation of
backbenchers last night concerned about Government
decisions. What I did yesterday at one stage was to talk
to some backbenchers at my invitation about the way we were
going on dealing with the pharmacy issue. I hop e, i f I may
say so, in respect of that that the Pharmacy Guild will see
our proposal as a responsible arnd constructive one. It
represents a very significant addition to the position which
was left at the outcome of the Pharmacy Tribunal. it offers
some $ 60M~ to pharmacists which is not only relevant in money
terms, income terms, but also recognising as it should be
recognised, the im~ ortance to the community of their
professional standing.
JOURNALIST: Can I have just a quick reaction to the
Americans? PM: These are the talks I had with the United States
Secretary of State Baker and United States Secretary of
Defense Cheney. They were very useful talks, I mean that's
not just a cliche, we talked for about an hour and a half.
I had the benefit of listening to their exposition about
developments within the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc,
China, we exchanged views which covered almost the globe, I
think you can say Again, what emerged from that is the
strength, the underlyinrg strength of the relationship
between our two countries. They've been kind enough to say
in recent times that the relationship between our two
countries has never been stronger, and that was reflected
this morning. It doesn't mean that on every issue that we
have exactly identical views. But our relationship is so
strong that where there are some differences of emphasis
we're able to express them.
JOURNALIST: Did you raise the question of the Americans
retaining 21 of their stockpile of chemical weapons after
a convention?
PM: That is a particular matter which is going to be
discussed in the talks today and tomorrow between Gareth
Evans and Secretary of State Baker. see, we only had an
hour and a half this morning and we were talking about
developments between the superpowers in their own relations,
the developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
China, Southern Africa, the Philippines, New Guinea. Just
to mention some of the things we discussed, I mean you just
can't go to every issue but that will be on the agenda.
JOURNALIST: Do you think they'll come around on the
Antarctic? PM: Again, that will be an issue that's going to be talked
about. Oust let me briefly say this about the Antarctic; I
think it simply cannot be disputed that the distance we've
travelled in just the last few months is truly phenomenal.
when I said just a few months ago that Australia was going
to launch the initiative to establish a wilderness reserve
-6-
( FM cont) in the Antarctic and that we would refuse to sign
the minerals convention, I think it would be fair to say
that there is a scepticism, cynicism, and pessimism amongst
the rest of the community They said; ' well what's
Australia doing?' No w what's happened since then? Firstly
and most importantly, we have a foundationally strong
relationship between Australia and France. we have an
identity of position which we were able to advance at the
Paris meeting, we now have the support of a wide range of
countries and without being exhaustive about it, it includes
India, Belguim, a number of countries and many of them
indicating their support for the idea. This is so great
that at the meeting in Paris that was held at the same time
as we were in Kuala Lumpur at CHOGM, there was an agreement
reached there at the Paris meeting of the Antarctic
consultative group to have a special meeting next year at
which the Australia proposal will be considered in detail.
So we've gone a long way. Now the United States at this
point is not supportive at the administration level. But
it's important to note that Senator Gore has tabled a
resolution which is supportive of our position and I think
the great strength that we have is that with each passing
month world opinion, including of course within the United
States, is going to become more and more supportive of the
Australian position.
JOURNALIST; Mr Hfawke, on a lighter note what do you think
of your singing Treasurer?
PM: I didn't see it but I'm told he put on a superb
performance in the Bert Newton Show and I think I'll
recommend to him that he does it once a month.
JOURNALSIT: Are you going to take it up?
PM: Well I have always taken the view that I've got a
fairly good vote winning capacity but if I had to name one
thing that would guarantee a loss of votes it would be if I
were to exhibit my singing prowess. I have a passionate
love of music, an ear for it, but somewhere in the creation
process the Almighty forget to give me a sense of tune and I
don't sing very well.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, with the sponsorship for the
campaign, do you think that there's more room for Australian
manufacturers to get behind the campaign and perhaps chip in
some money for it?
PM: You can always do a bit better in terms of support from
manufacturers but I think that there has to this point been
very considerable support, not Just financially but when you
have sixteen hundred manufacturers getting in behind it and
sixteen hundred manufacturers covering some 30,000
products, that's very good. I mean you don't have
-7-
( PM cont) awareness of the campaign unless there's been a
great degree of cooperation from manufacturers as well. So
sure, I would like them to do more, that would be good. But
the important thing for government is that governments not
walk away from it and this is where we have a fundamental
disagreement with the Opposition. The Opposition say they
would eliminate government funding for this great campaign
and we're not, we're going to keep government support and we
hope that the manufacturing industry will come in
financially as well.
ends