TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, SHELL AUSTRALIA
HEADQUARTERS, MELBOURNE 23 FEBRUARY 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: I'll just make a few comments and then be
available for a few questions for a while. I want to
suggest that the pattern of this campaign has become very
clear now. You have Andrew Peacock running around this
country prepared to make every sort of promise,
commitments which are unfunded, a $ 6 billion credibility
gap which means a blowout or the budget deficit, which
associated with their refusal to name any wages target
and therefore acknowledging that under their policies
you'd also have a wages explosion, means only one thing
rise in interest rates and collapse of the economy. What
you see is Dr Hewson and Mr Stone being sent scurrying
around after this profligate leader havinq to tidy up or
attempt to tidy up that gross irresponsibility. Now this
is a recipe for disaster. It is inevitable, as any
economic analyist will tell you, that if you have a
fiscal blowout, $ 6 billion hole adding to your
debt-wages explosion, there is only one outcome a
collapsed economy after a massive rise in interest rates.
Against that and this is what this campaign is about
choice between irresponsibility on the side of Mr Peacock
and the conservatives or the responsibility that you've
seen already in this campaign. That is a clear statement
on behalf of the Government by the Treasurer of the
savings that we will make to fund any promises that we
make in this campaign. There are a range of choices that
are going to emerge in the campaign. The choice of
environmental responsibility on our part or environmental
vandalism on the part of the opposition. In the area of
the economy gross irresponsibility. A $ 6 billion
credibility gap, fiscal blowout, wages blowout. On ouir
side responsibility. Those things now are becoming
clearer with every passing day.
JOURNALIST! After the wages-tax deal this week, Mr
Keating lot of business people are acting by Liberal
Party Do you approve of that?
PH: That's been true for a very long time. Ian Spicer,
now don't, I mean I don't want to get into a personality
clash with Ian. But Ian Spicer has never attempted, and
this is to his credit, Ian Spicer has never attempted to
hide his political identification with the Liberal Party.
See, what happened in the last few weeks? Just lookc at
2
page it. They came out in an unprompted, spontaneous way when
they heard what the Liberals were saying about the wages
policy and blew it out of the water. As well they should
if they had any interest at all for their members.
Because the Liberal's wages policy meant that large and
small business in this country were going to be faced
with a rerun of the beginning of the ' 80o. I mean this
election campaign is about the future. That's what it's
about as far as I'm concerned. The only relevance to the
past wherever I'll be referring to it is as a lesson for
the future and if my opponents are promising a repetition
of the past. And of course the immediate reaction of
business to what Chaney and the others were saying in
regard to their wages policy was to throw their hands up
in horror. But what happened? Immediately you had
private phone calls between Chaney's office and Spicer
saying look, there's an election coming on, we can't have
this sort of apparent difference, and they tried to sort
it out. But the fact is that as far as the actual
policies are concerned of the Liberals and National
I Party, business knows that it's a recipe for disaster.
It must be a disaster if you're going to have $ 6 billion
unfunded commitments and a wages explosion.
JOURNALIST: Hr Hawks, what sort of week do you think
you've had
PH: I'm happy enough with the week. I believe that the
only thing that's been talked about is that there was a
sea of microphones incident on Monday in Sydney and a
placard waver in Canberra on the same day. Now if people
want to, as I've said before, make something out of that
and think there's any significance, well that suits me
fine, whetner it's commentators or Mr Peacock. We've had
a week in which I've talked about positive issues for the
future. Look at what's been done. We've dealt with the
issue of microeconotmic reform. Now you'll recall,
p Hbeeaetnh etrh, e cirfy , y out hel osockr ebaamc k ofo vetrh e prceovnisoeursv amtoinvtehss?, what's
Hicroeconomic reform. You're not hearing much about it
now are you, from them. It's not surprising. Because I
have nailed them. Yesterday I said 77 days ago I issued
you a challenge on microeconomice reform. Did it at the
Press Club 77 days ago. I said you produce any evidence
where in your 30 years out of the last 33 when you were
establishing the practices, the institutions, that
attitudes of this country, you produce me any evidence at
all where in that period you came within a bull's roar of
matching our record in microeconomic reform. They have
tailed that challenge. Yesterday I set out the pattern
of microeconomic reform for the fourth term in detail and
challenged them there to begin to match it. They won't.
They can't. They have no record. They have no policy
and they have no commitment. All they do is to talk
about productivity but they do nothing about it. Today
again, what have we been on about? We've had the classic
illustration of the difference between us and the
conservatives. Today I was able to launch these booklets
page On Equal opportunity in Employment for Women. If you're
going to talk about microeconomic reform I suggest it's
very difficult to find anything more fundamental to
economic reform than whether in your economy you create a
situation where you're going to be able to tap into fifty
percent of the population. That is, women. Can you
think of anything more fundamental than making sure that
you overcome the neglect of thirty years of conservatism
which treated women as a sort of unfor-tunate appendage in
the economic process. Y'know, if you're a woman and
you've struggled through all of the restrictions, the
prejudices, the barriers and make it, well OK, we'll
accept that. But never in thirty years of conservatism
will do anything to make sure for this country'that you
tap that resource fifty percent of the population.
Today, in this week of the campaign, I was able to show
that it was this government, starting with its
affirmative legislation, Affirmative Action legislation
in 1984, which is acknowledged by everyone in the
community, including the Business council and the
confederation of Australian industry, as the the
government which has released that fifty percent of our
population. So that we're removing the barriers so that
Australian enterprise, large and small, in the private
sector and the public sector, is going to be able to tap
in to women as well as to men. And the whole range of
changes that we've made to make sure that that is an idea
which becomes action. And we only haven't put in
legisl. ation, not only have put in legislation, but we've
made the associated changes a trebling by ' 92 of child
care places. And so what have you seen? You've seen, in
this period of seven years, the increase from 44 percent
to 52 percent in the participation rate of women and into
1.6 million new jobs we've created, 92 percent of them in
the private sector, the majority of those jobs have gone
to women. Now what more fundamental microeconomic reform
could you make than that? And where can our conservative
opponents start to talk about it? You'll have Hr Peacock
S cwraenddiebriilnigt ya roguanpd antdh e tcaoluknitnrgy awboiutth hpirso duscitxi vbiitlyl, i onb utd ohlalvaer
done nothing to tackle these fundamental issues. So my
answer to your question is in this first week, there are
the fundamentals. You couldn't have a greater difference
emerged in the first week of the campaign. Hr Peacock
with his unfunded promises, $ 6 billion hole. We've had a
week in which the Treasurer, on behalf of the Government,
has put down a detailed statement which shows that every
promise that we make in this campaign will be fully
funded. we have a wages outcome fixed for the next
financial year. Our opponents, tagged by you people,
asked what's your wages outcome a deafening silence.
So at the end of the first week, Hawke and his colleagues
dealt with the fundamental issues of macroeconomic
policy, microeconomic reform, equal opportunity and what
have you had in this week from Mr Peacock and our Liberal
and National Party opposition on any of these fundamental
issues? on macroeconomic policy, a $ 6 billion hole,
wages explosion, microeconomic reform nothing, afld of
, page
course$ in the area of equal opportunity they ought to
collectively hang their heads in shame. If you were a
woman in Australia, how would you like to have your
future prospects depend upon a government which was made
up of National Party people? You know how the National
Party are committed to the interests of women. I won't
use the phrase that's come from National Party leaders
about where the place or women is. But you know what
their record is and that fifty percent of the Australian
population ought to be terribly apprehensive about any
government in which the National Party has a significant
part.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what's your assessment of the
damage to Labor's campaign here in Victoria of the bad
debt figures Tricontinental Bank?
PXt: I haven't seen the statement that's been released.
I saw some banner headline which talked about $ 795
4j million I think. I'm not going to make any comment until
I've seen the details and lot me say what I've said
before. I really have, to a very large extent, covered
this issue before by saying that I believe it's an insult
to the intelligence of Victorian voters if you believe
that any concern they may have about the Victorian State
Government will be translated by them into saying they
will punish themselves by voting against Federal Labor.
Because what this election is about for Mr and Ms
Victoria as it is for Mr and me Australia generally is
about the issues I've just been talking about in this
press conference. It is about are you going to have,
when you're talking about losses and debt, are you going
to have at the Federal level economic policies which
don't run up your debt. Because under our opponents
policy an increase, a running up of debt of $ 6 billion,
where my Government's been paying offt debt. The
Australian Government now owes no international debt. We
are an international creditor. No Australian family can
perceive of itself or being in debt on account of my
Government because we have transformed the debt of our
predecessors into a substantial surplus. So that's the
sort of issue, do they want to run, if debt is in their
mind, do they want to vote for a coalition which is going
to increase Australia's debt or for a government which
diminishes Australia's debt. Do they want in this
election to have the continuation of Medicare or the
chaos and destruction of Medicare promised by our
opponents. In this election, do they want to vote for a
government which has a magnificent record in protecting
the environment, or do they want to vote federally for
our opponents who would have dammed the Franklin, logged
the Daintree, mined Kakadu and destroyed the forests of
Tasmania. Those are the issues for the electors of
Victoria. In this election it is a question of choice
which is going to determine the welfare of the people of
Victoria and the people of Australia. Predictable
macroeconomic policies, a continuation of microeconomic
reform, a running down of debt as we've done or an
, page increase in debt from their $ 6 billion hole, protection
of the environment or destruction of the environment.
These are the choices and I don't believe Mr and Ms
Victoria, when they go into the ballot box, are going to
say all those things don't matter.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, were you surprised that Mr
Peacock's acceptance of your offer-to look at the NCA
material P14: No, no..
JOURNALIST: and have there been any formal
arrangements made for him to look at that material?
PK: I've asked that they be made. I wasn't surprised.
but it just seemed to me that he must have. They've
politicised the issue. They made the unfounded
accusations against the Government in general and against
O Lionel Bowen in particular. So I nailed them. I said
look, you're making these accusations, have a look at the
material. if there's any material, have a look at it.
And he should look at it.
JOURNALIST: How important is the..
PM: And as I say, I understand that the arrangements
have been made. I certainly asked that the Attorney-
General's office facilitate this process.
JOURNALIST: How important is the debate on Sunday in the
scheme of the campaign? And what are you going to ask Mr
Peacock? PM: Well, I know your last question isn't serious
because you wouldn't expect me to tell you what I'm going
to ask him. There's got to be a bit of an element of
surprise. I know you've got to write a Sunday column
Peter, but leave me something mate, leave me something.
Let me say this obviously the debate has a
significance. It would be silly for me to say it doesn't
have any significance of course it does. But, as I've
said, I also make the point that there's a sort of
symmetry almost about the public life period of Mr
Peacock and myself. We've both been in public life for
about thirty years and I think that the Australian people
are going to make a judgement on the 24th of March
between Hr Peacock and myself on the basis of their
perceptions of us in public life for thirty years. I
trust and believe that the perception they have of
myself, vis-a-vis Mr Peacock now, will be enhanced as a
result of Sunday but I think that general perception is
going to be there and it's going to be important. Let me
also say that while this election is about leadership to
some extent, obviously it is also about your team. And
let it not be forgotten that this is another area of
choice. on the one hand, a Labor Government lead by the
man who is the undisputed leader, who has the undisputed
' page confidence and support of his party and all of it, and
with a united team and on the other, a man who is not
liked, if I could put it in moderate terms, by a great
number of his own party. A disunited, hatred-ridden
policy-less coalition of the Liberal and National Party.
It's not just about the Liberals. They are asking the
people of Australia to form a government of which the
National Party. Those arm the issues.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, when you say that the general
perception of Mr Peacock will be in enhanced, what do you
think that general perception is?
PH: I said I think the perceptions will be enhanced of
both of us. Look, I think you will find if you look at
all the transcripts Dennis that I haven't got into
personal, personality attacks on the Leader of the
Opposition. Others do that in the media and in his own
party, I mean the worst things that are said about Mr
Peacock are basically said by his own people. I remind
you of what Mr Howard said last year, and reported
widely. He said there is and can be no trust between Mr
Peacock and myself. Now they were Mr Howard's words no
trust between us. And that's indicative if you like of
the problem. They can never provide stable government
while that party has got Mr Peacock and Hr Howard in it.
There are two senior people with Mr Howard saying I've
got to be honest, he said, there is and can be no trust
between us. NOW, so I say, the things that are to be
said about Mr Peacock are said and arm felt more deeply
by his own people in his own party in his own coalition.
I don't want to go into it now. I simply say I think I
have a record of strong leadership, united party and Mr
Peacock hasn't got that record of strength. You can look
at it issue after issue and I guess the most obvious one
is this Andrew's Army that I have to walk through in
every public gathering I'm going to now. It's not
surprising that the pilots, who wanted to wreck this
economy, are turning up as Andrew's Army asking for a
0 vote for Mr Peacock. very simple, because Mr Peacock
didn't have the strength to take a tough decision. When
questioned at your infamous press conference about his
industrial relations policy, and will any of you ever
forget that? I'm told it's etched indelibly in the
memory of all of you. Aat that press confrece and an
associated one, he said it's not for government to get
involved government shouldn't have a role in settling
these disputes, it's for the parties. In other words,
let the pilots use their strength, get their thirty
percent. in these issues there comes a time when
leadership requires a capacity to make tough decisions.
It wasn't pleasant for me but I knew that I would be
derelict to my duty to the Australian economy and the
Australian people if I didn't after pleading with them
to stay in the system then say right, if you're not
going to do that, then we have to resist you. Now, the
result as I say day after day, Andrew's Army out there.
7
% page
it's not surprising, they would be silly not to because
he supported them.
JOURNALIST: Hr Keating calls him a souffle.
PH: No I don't really want to get into descriptions
about him. I'll go to the issues and I'll talk about
that one I just have. That's not an opinion, that's a
f act. And there is not one commentator in Australia who
doesn't recognise that it we'd given into the pilots, as
Xr Peacock would have, that the Australian economy was
ruined everyone knows that. There come issues when
you've got to have strength and make the tough decisions.
We've done it. OK last one and that's..
JOURNALIST: Given your strong on equal opportunity
at work, why has it we haven't had a woman in Cabinet for
two years, and if you win a fourth term will you look at
some more women in the Ministry?
S PH: The question portrays, with respect, either a
lack of understanding or refusal to acknowledge the
processes. You say will I put someone in. You ought to
know, you've been around long enough to know, that I
don't make the appointments.
JOURNALIST: You had some influence on Margaret Reynolds?
PM: To the extent that I had any marginal influence, I
mean I to the extent I had any marginal
influence, it was along the line you're asking. But in
the end the composition of the ministry is determined by
the Caucus. Let me say I don't have to apologise for my
Party in terms of their commitment to the numbers of
women in the Parliament. We are increasingly having more
women in the Parliament and that's a good thing. I hope
that in the election for the fourth Hawke Ministry that
O Ctahuecrues . w illT hebree ' mso reo new ommeonr. e upT hhaetr ew ilaln d bet hean maIt tmeurs t fgoor. the
JOURNALIST: On the Marlin matter, Mr Bowen did an
interview last night on television which seemed to cast
some doubt on whether he approved of the idea of showing
confidential documents to Mr Peacock. Have you talked
about that with him? Secondly, senator Richard Alston
claims that you must have known about this matter back in
December when Bowen went through the processes of..
PH4: Let me go to the second part first then obviously it
is covered by it. I said we don't discuss these matters,
I made it before, we neither confirm nor deny these
matters and you don't expect me to do that, On the third
part of your question, there was of course discussion
with Mr Bowan before I made the offer yesterday.
JOURNALIST: What documents have you asked to be made
available? Are they actual NCA..
8
u page
PM: You're not really serious about that question. I
have said that I neither confirm nor deny. So I've said
if he wants to look and see if there are docum~ ents then
do it. OK.
ends