TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE,
JANUARY 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: The Cabinet today considered a report from the
Foreign Minister on developments in Eastern Europe. That
report to, of course, a considerable extent was based on
Gareth Evans' recent visit to two Germanys and to Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Out of that report the
Government made a number of decisions which we regard as
constituting at this stage an appropriate response to
those important developments. Gareth Evans will be
putting out a more detailed press release later on this
afternoon. But I'll just refer to some of those
decisions. We will establish an Australian program of
training for Eastern Europe which we'll put at least
That will be some contribution from Australia to meet
what is now an obvious need. But after these something
like two generations of a repressed command economy there
of course has not been an emergence of the sorts of
commercial and economic skills in those countries which
are necessary to enable them to undertake the sort of
market development that they intend to pursue now. It's
been made clear that they would appreciate assistance in
developing those skills. So Australia will adopt this
program and it will involve having people from these
countries coming to Australia to undertake studies in
various areas of business management, environmental
safety, agricultural technology, just to give those
examples. And it would also entail some visits by
experts in these areas to those countries. We also
intend to upgrade our diplomatic representation in the
region. We have embassies now as you know in Moscow,
Warsaw, Budapest and in Belgrade and we intend now to
establish an embassy in Czechoslovakia, in Prague.
Czechoslovakia has a population of some 16 million people
and with its background and traditions we believe it's an
appropriate area to enhance our diplomatic
representation. Austrade will also be keeping its
Eastern European coverage under close review. We'll be
encouraging an increasing range of high level and
parliamentary visits to these countries. We'll be making
a contribution to the stabilisation fund for Poland. It
won't be a large contribution, a large one hasn't been
requested. But it will be indicative of the commitment
that we have and we'll follow on the announcements that I
made in October of last year of our commitment to assist
in the redevelopment of Poland. So without being
exhaustive, those are some of the decisions that we've
taken. As I say, the Foreign Minister will be issuing a
press release on these matters later on today. Alright.
Any questions?
JOURNALIST: When's the mission in Prague likely to open?
PM: I'm not quite sure how long that will take but we'll
process it as quickly as we can. Obviously it will be
this year.
JOURNALIST: What sort of cost would you be looking at?
PM: I think the order of the cost all up will be
something like $ 2.5M
JOURNALIST: Have you considered Bucharest yet?
PM: Not at this stage.
JOURNALIST: Is the Government concerned about the trend
it seems in Eastern Europe of the new governments not
being fully established and particularly in Romania?
PM: Sure. It's always been something that I think
people should've taken into account, that you get the
euphoria and the understandable proper euphoria of change
but not always the understanding of the complex
difficulties that they are in turning around, as I say, a
couple of generations of the imposition of a repressive
command economy, an absence of political freedoms. And
then what has to happen is on two fronts on the
economic and political front fundamental change. In
other words you've got to have the processes emerging
whereby you can have a free democratic election for
parliament and to get those processes underway which will
enable an election to be fairly and properly held is not
easy. Of course in the economic area perhaps the
difficulty is even more profound because you've had, as I
say, two generations of a command economy in which the
opportunities for initiative and decision making, a
proper allocation of resources is entirely absent. And
so it's always going to be the case that the euphoria was
going to be followed by the question marks then as to how
these issues are resolved. I think the important things
are these. Firstly, that there is no doubt about the, in
my judgement, irreversibility of the decisions that have
been taken and the commitment of the peoples of these
countries to pursue these courses in the political and
economic field. And secondly of course, there is an
overwhelming, large commitment on the part of the
countries of the West to cooperate. I've been
particularly pleased I might say, as I think you would've
heard me say before, that in the case of the United
States and the countries of Western Europe it hasn't been
a case of gloating and saying well the system that we've
always despised and said could not last, has crumbled.
I've rather taken the view that we all have the
responsibilities now towards the people of these
countries to do everything we can in a practical way
in rhetoric but in a practical way to facilitate the
processes of political and economic reconstruction. So
I'm not surprised that the difficulties and tensions are
emerging. It would've been remarkable if they hadn't.
The important thing is that I think we have the basis for
optimism for the future.
JOURNALIST: Is this seen as a starting point built
on further in recent years or is level likely to be
maintained with economic assistance?
PM: We have the commitment to act in concert with likeminded
countries, I mean we didn't wait for others. The
announcement I made I think on 15 October indicated our
commitments then. Gareth attended the meeting of the G24
at the end of last year and we will be cooperating fully
with them. To the extent that there needs to be some
perhaps change in emphasis in the things that are to be
done in the light of developments that take place, we
will accommodate to that. We, as I have said in answer
to a previous question, share the commitment of the
countries of the West to being practical and generous in
our assistance and the forms that we've decided upon now
are those that seem appropriate and are a practical
response to specific requests that were put to us. If
those requests change in some form we'll be receptive to
it. JOURNALIST: Further east Mr Hawke, has there been any
indication the difficulties facing the Soviet Union may
cause Mr Rhyzkov to think again of his visit here?
PM: Well I must honestly say that there's obviously some
speculation as to whether the rapidity and gravity in a
sense of some of the changes that are taking place may
cause him to change his timetable visit to Australia.
It has happened before. But we've had no indication to
that effect. I certainly hope it doesn't happen. We
would very, very much welcome a visit from Mr Rhyzkov for
these reasons. Firstly, we have as you know, over a
period of some time been taking practical steps to
improve the relationship between our two countries. It's
important for us, it's important for the Soviet Union and
in our small way it's important that we make that
contribution globally to the improvement of relationships
of the Soviet Union with the rest of the world. Secondly
of course, it will give us a remarkably direct
opportunity to hear at first hand an assessment by Mr
Rhyzkov of both the nature of the changes that are taking
place and his assessment of the implications of those
changes for the future, both for the Soviet Union and for
the immediate region and globally. So we hope he's still
coming and we expect that he is.
JOURNALIST: Just moving back to domestic issues Mr
Hawke. The negotiations between the Government and the
ACTU for the next wages system will take place soon. Do
you see that as embodying significant steps towards an
enterprise bargaining?
PM: Let me preface my answer to that question Paul, by
saying that of course you must understand that in the
changes that have already taken place in the wages system
there has already been quite a significant move. By
definition, restructuring is not something that you
undertake in negotiations about restructuring not
something that can alone be undertaken at the sectoral
level. They have been increasingly undertaken within
individual enterprises and very successfully in many of
them. So what we will see in this next stage is a
further development of that. But I want to make this
point clear. As far as the Government is concerned in
the negotiations that we'll undertake with the ACTU,
centrally important to that will be ensuring our capacity
to predict and deliver on aggregate national wages
outcomes so that we'll have the combination of the
decisions by the Industrial Relations Commission which
will make the decisions as to general minimum wage
levels. And to the extent that the negotiations do take
place as we would welcome in the individual enterprises,
we will ensure that the mechanisms are in place, both in
terms of relationships with the ACTU and the Commission,
to be able to do as we've done in the past to formulate a
national economic policy on the basis of predictable
national wages aggregates outcomes.
JOURNALIST: Does that mean Mr Hawke therefore that you
wouldn't be too keen on the idea of removing the..
claims provision...
PM: Not in an unqualified way, no.
JOURNALIST: inaudible
PM: Well obviously you've got to understand that we're
at the very, very early stages of negotiations in 1990
for this next year. We will listen to what the ACTU has
got to say. We'll also have discussions with the
employers. We've got some, we'l11 have some ideas about.
this. But our guiding criteria will be two really. One
that I have stressed in the answers that I've already
given, and that is that we have to be able to have a
predictable figure for the national aggregate wages
outcome. I'll have that criterion. But we'll also want
to try and have processes which will enable the
continuation of the flexibility which has already started
to emerge under the restructuring process which has
commenced. The experience to this point shows that it's
possible to do both.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, are you upset that the cost of
health care is rising and if so how does the Government
plan to fund that increase? And in that context do you
endorse Dr Blewett's promise of no increase in the
Medicare levy in the next term of Government if you win
the election?
PM: I endorse that and let me make it quite clear
Laurie, that our future Medicare expenditures are there
in the published forward estimates. Those expenditures
grow according to the special formula, it's understood
which takes account of relevant costs, hospital costs,
and factors which could lead to a blowout. It also has
in that special formula a provision for taking account of
the ageing of the population. So those factors are
there, they are published in the forward estimates and I
would remind you that with those future Medicare outlays
covered, we have outlays as a percentage of GDP falling
steadily to 22% by 1992/ 93. So our position is clear,
it's understood. I must say that that stands in very
stark contrast to the position of the Opposition. I
don't want to take a great deal of time I might say
personally adding to the difficulties that are already
apparent for the Opposition. But let me make this point,
that it's been somewhat compounded even further today, I
understand, by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition
still doesn't seem to be quite sure how he wants to
handle this. Because I understand in the text of a
speech that he was to deliver today that he distributed,
it included the passage this was distributed this
morning and I quote " in any case I give you an ironclad
guarantee that within the context of the reviews of
the present health scheme and any associated changes in
the taxation system, no individual or family will be
worse off". When he came around to delivering the speech
that was deleted. So we have a position as far as the
Opposition is concerned that due to a combination of
obviously incompetence and dishonesty, because they must
have known at least as far back as October of last year
that what they were saying couldn't be delivered. We now
have a part exposure of their fiscal irresponsibility. I
say a part exposure because let me make these points
briefly. They have given the ambit of 0 to $ 2.6B as the
shortfall that will have to be made up as a result of the
loss of the levy. That of course doesn't take account of
the incentive tax rebates for taking out private
insurance. So it's someting there in the order of $ 2.6B
for that. But you should understand too when you're
looking now at the exposed fiscal incompetence of the
Opposition that you have to add -to that $ 2.6B the
undisputed figure of about $ 3B which was put out last
year as the cost to the Coalition of funding the two tier
tax scale. Because that was the calculation that was put
out. It hasn't been disputed. the cost of creating
the two tier tax scale on the basis that no-one would
lose. You now have also in the last two days the
emergence of the commitment of another half a billion
dollars confirmed by their spokesman this morning in
regard to roads. Who's their spokesman there? Mr Sharp.
Mr Sharp has been having a little bit of difficulty
making up his mind about this one but I understand
according to a transcript that was given to me just
recently, he says that he has said that in the first year
of a Coalition government they will undertake that
funding increase in roads which he says is in the order
of half a billion dollars. So if you bring it all
together my friends, you'll see that you've got something
of the order of $ 2.6B in the area of health. You've got
$ 3B to deliver on the tax scale. And you've got half a
billion dollars in roads. At least $ 6B. This great
gaping, fiscal hole. So while the emphasis has been on
the health area just in the last two or three days, it's
only part of their problem.
JOURNALIST: The question of your promise not to raise
the levy. You made an identical promise in 1984 and
then broke it. Why should people believe you now?
PM: Well I think they've seen the way in which now, in
the period since we've made the adjustments, the way it's
worked in which we have in fact as I say been able to
show in the forward estimates, the expenditures and the
formula upon which it's worked. I believe that the
people will have reason on the basis of experience to
believe that we can and will deliver.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, will the Budget surplus remain at
$ 9B over the next couple of years or will you fund tax
cuts and any other spending increases out of a lower
surplus? PM: The range of decisions that we will have to take
will be based upon a continuation of the approach that
we've had in the past and that is that we will be having
a significant Budget surplus. Any decisions that we take
in the near future in regard to additional programs we
will be seeking to fund. We will be making detailed
statements in the weeks ahead now between now and the
election of precisely what additional programs we may
have, how they'll be funded and what implications they
will have for fiscal outcomes. The people will be left
in no doubt as to the way in which we go about will
be on our promises.
JOURNALIST: Spending cuts or tax increases, Mr Hawke?
PM: There won't be an enormous amount of room for
savings. We've been there very substantially but there
will be room for some savings. We'll indicate that at
the appropriate time.
JOURNALIST: Does that mean there'll be no overall
economic statement Mr Hawke? And secondly, do you intend
to make a Cabinet decision on your attitude to the
Garnaut recommendations on tariffs before the election?
PM: Economic statement? Well I really haven't got
anything to add to what I've said before on that,
Michelle. If we regard it as appropriate to have a
larger statement, we will. We'll obviously, out of the
discussions that we'll have with the ACTU and the
employers in the area of wages and the considerations
that are involved in that, there'll be some statement
which reflects the outcome of those discussions. Now we
have a number of on-going reviews in place. Now it
depends upon the assessment that we'll make at the time
as to whether it's appropriate to bring those together
into a larger economic statement and that's what I've
said before I have nothing to add to that. As to the
Garnaut Report, we announced earlier the processes that
we've established and as be done of course through
the Structural Adjustment Committee, to consider all the
range of recommendations that Dr Ross Garnaut has made.
The work is proceeding as decided by the Structural
Adjustment Committee. Now as to the timetable for
specifics of those inquiry processes and decisions, I
can' t at this stage comment to whether on the
particular one you mention that is what he had to say
about tariffs it's being considered. Now what the
timetable of decision on that will be, I'm not in a
position to say.
JOURNALIST: Is Parliament coming back for more than two
weeks on February
PM: I'm not sure at this stage, my dear friend. At
least that's a subtle way of asking.
JOURNALIST: How attractive do you find the idea of going
into an election campaign promising increased petrol
taxes to pay for the improved roads?
PM: Well I would say this about that question. That
part of the background of it is of course against the
very massive campaign of misrepresentation that has taken
place about the declining proportion of revenue that the
Government gets from oil which is allocated to roads. If
you look at the total take of the Government from oil
which is in the components of excise not just excise
which has been referred to you will see that in fact we
have marginally in our period of office allocated more to
roads as a proportion of that take than in the last year
of the previous government. Now in those circumstances
where it's clearly not the case that we have been
niggardly in the allocation of that proportion, I think
if you were to consider this question of an increased
impost for the purpose of increased allocation of roads
it would be seen in a different light than against the
proposition that we have drastically cut our allocation
to roads from the total take from oil.
PM: Now, now I just, Laurie, I just put that background
to say I think the reaction of people to this point has
been on a misapprehension about the allocation of the
Government's decision. Whether in fact we will make a
decision to have such a further impost for the purpose of
additional allocation of roads is something to be
considered. There's certainly been no decision taken
about it.
JOURNALIST: Are you saying though that you think you
could persuade them that a new tax in that area would be
a good idea?
PM: Well, what I'm saying is this, that I think it would
be very difficult to persuade the Australian people that
that would be appropriate. If it were the fact that this
Government had significantly reduced from it's total
revenue from oil, it's allocation to roads, that would be
a very, very difficult thing to do and that is the
background which is attempted to be established by a
certain people who are running campaigns. What I'm
saying is that when you look at the facts that is not so,
that in fact we have marginally increased the allocation
to roads from the total oil take compared with the last
year of the other government. So, in that context it may
be not so difficult if it were judged that it were
appropriate to make more funds available for roads and to
fund that, not just to do it out of surplus. It's not
the same position, as some people are trying to
represent, as a massive decline in the proportion of
funds allocated to roads.
JOURNALIST: Have you made your mind up yet Mr Hawke
whether you'll debate Mr Peacock?
PM: I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: Have you made your mind up yet whether
you'll debate Mr Peacock on television during the course
of the campaign and when during the course of that
campaign PM: That decision was made ages ago. I forget how long,
ages. I mean, I
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well, if it's Mr Peacock who's leading them, yes.
JOURNALIST: support of the invasion of Panama, Mr
Hawke, but despite the fact that Vietnam have withdrawn
their troops from Cambodia, the Australian Government
still hasn't resumed aid to Vietnam, direct aid to
Vietnam. PM: Well, I'm glad you said direct aid, because, as you
appreciate that
JOURNALIST: resume and if not, are we guilty of
double standards?
PM: No, we're not guilty of double standards obviously
because, as I think you appreciate, Milton, because you
did qualify your question, there has been forms of
assistance in other ways through non government
organisations and multilaterally. Now quite clearly the
question of direct resumption of direct aid to Vietnam is
inextricably bound up with the delicate negotiations that
are taking place now in regard to Cambodia and I don't
believe on anyone's part there is any suggestion, in
regard to Australia, that we are acting other than in an
entirely appropriate and entirely constructive way in
regard to the Indo China region. Indeed I'm very proud
of the response, the virtually universal approbation that
has been given to the Australian initiative and, as you
will appreciate, while pursuing that initiative, we are
also adding to it now, as Gareth Evans just announced
very recently, by sending a team there to Cambodia so
that, not only Australia, but the rest of the countries
that are going to be involved in finding a resolution of
that tragic situation there will be better informed about
the practical difficulties and realities that we'll have
to face up to if together we're going to pursue this
concept of United Nations presence there in this period
leading up to elections. So, Milton, I don't think there
is any suggestion on anyone's part that we're acting
other than in a totally constructive and principled
fashion in regard to this region.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well, yes, but there is no expectation that we
should inject into this complex situation the difficulty
that may be created in some people's perception by the
resumption of, and I don't think that as far as Vietnam
is concerned itself, that they are pressing this point.
They understand that we are engaged in the very delicate
series of negotiations in which now Australia has assumed
a, you know, a quite pivotal role. So there is really no
expectation about this and there's no reason at all to
run the risk of in any way prejudicing the capacity that
we obviously have generated to get support from all the
players in this complex situation by making a decision
which no-one's really seeking.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what specific initiatives do you
expect out of your New Zealand trip?
PM: It really will be an exchange of information. I
don't know that there will be any specific initiatives,
but I certainly want to hear directly from Mr Palmer the
results of the fairly extensive review which you would
understand they have undertaken of the South Pacific
region and their relations in that region. Also be
interested to hear how they feel their relations with the
United States are developing. So we're also scheduled to
have discussions in regard to the way the CER is
developing, we're obviously rather pleased with the way
that's going. Certainly one other area which I know that
I know Mr Palmer wants to talk with me about are the
developments in Bougainville because there is a
reasonably New Zealand presence there as well. So
you'll see it will be essentially an exchange of views
and a discussion about issues of importance to us in the
region and in our bilateral relation. There is no
specific decision that we are scheduled, scheduled to
take. JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Now I think there was one over here
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, when can people with 17 percent
mortgage rates look forward to some home loan relief?
Will it require a further easing of the monetary policy
as the banks are suggesting?
PM: I think that you will recall that the Treasurer in
addressing this issue put it, and I certainly agree with
-him, that this was a limited initial step follow
that the decision in regard to mortgage rates would be a
matter for the banks. It may be, as he said, that for
different banks there would be different points because
of the different composition of their books, but clearly
the impression seems to be amongst the banking industry
that they will require a further move. Now I'm not going
to speculate on when that will be. All I can say is that
there does seem to be a very general acceptance in the
community and in the financial community, the banking
sector, that a) the decision that we took was right, the
timing was right and the conditions have now been created
under which, within the not too distant furure there will
be a reflection of this lowering regimen in the mortgage
market, but I'm not going to speculate as to when that
will be.
JOURNALIST: I just want to follow up Glenn's question,
Prime Minister
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: You're spending a lot more time at the
Commonwealth Games than you are discussing Bougainville
with Mr Palmer. What's your response to the cynics in
talkback radio and elsewhere who've unkindly suggested
you' re mainly going to Auckland to bathe in the reflected
glory of our medal winners?
PM: Yes well, you can't, you can't really win with those
cynics and I don't really try to. The fact is that as
well as the Commonwealth Games being on there, it is the
150th celebration of the Waitangi Treaty. I have been
asked, now going back more than a year, by the New
Zealand Government to go over at this time to combine a
visit which would recognise that celebration, as well as
the Commonwealth Games, and to undertake discussions with
them on a range of issues. Now the cynics will always be
there, Laurie. If I allowed myself to be deflected by
the cynics, you wouldn't do anything.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the 50 defence force personnel who
are going to Papua New Guinea, will any of them be on
Bougainville and do we actually have any military
PM: We've made it quite clear that our people are going
up there, our military personnel who are going up there
for training purposes will not be involved in
Bougainville. JOURNALIST: We don't have any military personnel on
Bougainville at the moment?
PM: Not to my knowledge and it certainly has been, that
has been the intention of the Government that there
should not be.
JOURNALIST: Will you be discussing Bougainville with Mr
Namaliu at any time in the near future, Mr Hawke?
PM: Well I've just had my Ministers and my senior
Ministers up there who've had discussions with the Prime
Minister there and with other ministers. I've been given
a full report on those discussions. If I were to find it
necessary in the light of any new developments to talk
with Rabbie I would do so.
JOURNALIST: Do you envisage any circumstances in which
Australian troops might be directly used on Bougainville?
PM: Not in terms of the dispute between the Government
of Papua New Guinea and the BRA. I've made that quite
clear and I say that unequivocally. Australian troops
are not going to be involved in an internal dispute
within Papua New Guinea. That's proper from our point of
view and obviously from Papua New Guinea's. I mean, let
me make the point again and I'm certainly not saying it's
the case with you, but there seems to be an almost
unstated assumption in some areas when they talk about
Papua New Guinea that, that Papua New Guinea is still a
colony or that it isn't a fully sovereign independent
country, so it's an area in which we have some right or
opportunity to just to go in and act capriciously as in a
non sovereign community. Papua New Guinea is a sovereign
independent country and Australia will not be committing
its troops into that country in terms of a resolution of
some internal problem in that country. The only
situation in which Australian-defence forces could be
involved and would be involved is if we made the
judgement that it was necessary for the purpose of
evacuating and securing the safety of Australian
citizens. In no other circumstance.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, will your Government ensure that
foreigners can earn no more than 20 percent of our
commercial networks as announced by Mr Willis?
PM Well, the Minister is examining this both in terms
of intention of the legislation and in terms of what the
present situation seems to have been. I mean, in other
words, it seems clear from certain statements have
been made by the Receiver for the Channel Seven group
that more than 20 percent has in fact been involved. Now
the Minister is looking at this matter and will be
reporting to the Government in the near future on it.
JOURNALIST: What would you see as the appropriate
maximum level of foreign ownership?
PM: Well, certainly a minority and I will want to I've
just had a very brief discussion with the Minister and he
has undertaken, he's said to me that he's examining this
issue in some detail and will be reporting back. If
there's some decision that needs to be taken to clarify
this, well, then a decision will be made by the Cabinet
at the appropriate time.
JOURNALIST: The Thomastown by-election on Saturday Mr
Hawke, are you expecting a very big swing against Labor?
PM: I haven't been following it closely enough. I'd
expect that a) you would get a normal by-election swing.
You always get some. I guess there'd have to be some
addition to that from some concern about the industrial
relations position in regard to the trams down there.
But I really haven't spent any time addressing what the
magnitude of the swing may be. All I can say is that it
clearly will be something that will be relevant to
Victoria and despite what will no doubt be the frenetic
attempts by some to beat it up as having some federal
implications I will not lose any sleep about it.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, have the Opposition's
problems over health policy tempted you to call an
0election sooner rather than later?
PM: No. No, I mean I think that, as I indicated in an
answer I gave earlier, that it's indicative of their
unfitness. As someone said recently, not only are they
unfit to be in Government, they are unfit to be in
Opposition. And the longer you give them y'know, the
more they show their incompetence, as well as their
dishonesty. Because I think everyone recognises that
they were not telling the truth about this situation for
a period of at least three months. Now the more time
they have the more likely it is that I mean I'm not
saying therefore that the election's going to be on May
12 but I'm simply saying that there are at least as
many arguments coming out of this for giving them longer
to expose their inadequacies than just jumping onto what
has been perhaps the most egregious example of their
incompetence. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, Mr Peacock says he is telling the
truth about the fact that health costs will balloon in
13
the 90s. Now do you acknowledge in any way that Medicare
will eventually outdo its usefulness?
PM: No, not in its concept it won't outlive its
usefulness. We've shown in the period in Government that
in terms of our own decisions and the sort of
negotiations we're capable of having with the States that
we have the capacity to make adjustments. And you look
at the range of decisions that we've taken. Without
being exhaustive about it decisions we made last year in
regard to new hospital funding arrangements with the
States and decisions that we've taken in regard to
cutting back on the enormous explosion of income that was
occuring in some specialist areas of doctors. We have
shown a capacity to adjust and to the extent that that is
necessary in the future we will. But the underlying
principles will not change and those are simply these, as
you know 1) universality and 2) equity. Those
principles are neither negotiable nor, under us,
changeable. JOURNALIST: you may actually have to spend more in
the future than
PM: Well I've simply said that, in answer to the
question that Laurie put earlier, that our forward
expenditures are there in the forward estimates. They
are published. They are consistent, as I say, with the
position. We're covering what will be required to be
covered under the formula which takes account of
increased costs in areas where there can be a blowout.
Having taken account of those according to the formula we
still have a position where outlays are going to be
declining as a proportion of GDP down to 22% in 1992.
JOURNALIST: Do you think the behaviour of our athletes
in Auckland has been an embarrassment at all?.
PM: I think initially it was. I think it probably
embarrassed them. But importantly, and to their great
credit, I congratulate them and I'm sure Australians are
proud of them. After that initial perhaps overexuberance
in behaviour by a few, by a few I emphasise,
they've got down to the serious business of competition
and fair and effective competition and they have got the,
I was going to say the runs on the board, they've got the
medals on the board. That's certainly going to be a
pleasure for me to congratulate them personally on behalf
of the people of Australia in the next couple of days.
ends