TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH THE HON BOB
BROWN, MINISTER FOR LAND TRANSPORT, SHERATON HOTEL,
BRISBANE, 27 FEBRUARY 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased to be here
with my Minister for Land Transport, Bob Brown, to
announce the commitment of the Government in its fourth
term to a new Provincial Cities and Rural Highways
Program. This will be to supplement our additional, our
existing programs and it will mean that in important
areas of Australia, more funding can be provided to
upgrade our road system. roads, the regions where
the next Labor Government may fund appropriate projects,
with the cooperation of the relevant State Governments.
as far as Queensland is Concerned, the area of North
Queensland and west of the Divide and in Victoria, the
Calder and Midland Highways and the Lincoln Highway in
South Australia, roads in Tasmania and other major
regional roads with high cost benefit ratios.
Now I repeat, the distinction between what we are doing
and the Opposition, is that these additional commitments
are fully funded and, in our case, will be funded out of
the additional tax we're imposing on luxury cars. I
release with this commitment to the roads program the
updated scoresheet on wages fiscal discipline which will
show here the funding for these promises of $ 100 million
a year in the next three years. And, as distinct from
the Opposition's unfunded talk about another billion,
here these will be funded and have no adverse impact upon
the Government's budget position.
So we take the position of our roads seriously. I put it
in the context of making the point that in our seven
years in Government we have spent 18 percent more in real
terms on roads than did the Opposition in their period in
Government which represents some $ 235 million in real
terms annually. More spent by this Government. And in
terms of the misuse of statistics that have been floating
around this country as to the proportion of Government
revenue that is dedicated to roads, let me make the point
quite clearly that in this our last year that we've been
responsible for road funding, we have allocated 19.42
percent of our total revenue from oil to roads which
compare with 19.06 percent. In other words the best part
of half a percent more of our revenue available to us
dedicated to roads in our last year, compared with the
last year of the Fraser Government.
So however you look at it, as a proportion of revenue or
in terms of the real level of funding, the record of this
Government exceeds that of our predecessors. But we're
not satisfied with that. We've announced, as you know,
the $ 120 million black spot program and that depends upon
cooperation from the States, accepting national
standards. That $ 120 million is available to remedy the
worst spots on our highways around Australia which have
been responsible for fatalities. But in addition to that
now a further $ 100 million to supplement existing
programs. Bob, would you like to add anything to what I've had to
say?
SBROWN: Well thanks very much, Mr Prime Minister. What
I'd like to emphasise, ladies and gentlemen, is that this
initiative now which the Federal Government has committed
itself to represents probably the fourth major initiative
which has been taken by successive Labor Governments.
It's a part of that continuum of Federal Labor's
commitment to the development of a national, integrated,
coordinated and efficient land transport system.
The first element was the establishment of the national
highway program in 1974. The next two elements were the
Federal, the Hawke Government's commitment to index the
amount of money which is going into roads at the federal
level in order to make sure that the level of it is
maintained at least in real terms. The third part of
that four part program was the adoption at the beginning
of last year of major roads of national economic'
importance which would identify and fund now as national
arterial roads.
This is the fourth and this, of course, it complements
the Prime Minister's black spots program to which he's
already made reference. A commitment on the part of the
Government to put another $ 110 million into those spots
around Australia where crashes have been occurring, where
people have been dying and as a result of that we're
going to lift them out of the system as well.
This is a project of enormous significance because what
it does, is to supplement those existing programs and to
make it possible for us to identify other roads of
national economic importance and to target funds
specifically into those roads. And that's what we'll be
doing. The Prime Minister indicated in Queensland, for example,
that we'll include roads in Northern Queensland which are
important nationally, which are important to develop our
capacity to export and to replace imports and to overcome
the current account deficit, as a contribution towards
it. The roads on the western side of the Divide in
Queensland, the additional assistance to the Pacific
Highway, additional assistance for those roads in
provincial and rural Australia which we feel probably
hasn't been sufficiently picked up under those existing
programs. So that's the essence of it an initiative of major
national importance. I'm delighted to be associated with
it and, of course, I'm delighted to be here with the
Prime Minister when he announces it.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could I just get clear with
respect to the Pacific Highway, are you saying that extra
funds are now available if the State Government upgrades,
lifts its priority existing funds
PM: Well, what we're saying is that under the, forget
this new program, under the existing funding arrangements
there's the capacity for work to be done there. But we
are saying that if the State Government wishes to give
this area that you're talking about priority, then funds
are available out of this amount for that area as well.
But I don't really want to add to that.
BROWN: I think we should understand that the Pacific
Highway is not a national highway, it's a State highway
and there wouldn't be Very much sense in our attempting
to determine national priorities-on the State highway
system. If the New South Wales Government wants to
accord it a higher priority, then there is provision, as
the Prime Minister indicates, under this program for us
to pour more money into the Pacific Highway. I would
expect that that would be one of the results. But the
priority needs to be determined by the New South Wales
Government, not only in terms of the existing assistance
that we provide at the national level for New South
Wales, but also in terms of the amount of money which New
South Wales will provide for that road out of its own
resources. And we're prepared to help, but we can't take
over the, the full responsibility nor would any Federal
Government ever do so.
JOURNALIST: cents in the dollar raised from petrol
taxes, what now is the Federal Labor Government returning
to motorists with this latest addition?
BROWN: Well, what we're returning to motorists with this
latest addition is another $ 430 million, that's including
the black spots program, over the next three years. But
I would appreciate it if the media and the Australian
community could get rid of this simplistic nonsense about
the need to establish some type of connection between the
money we raise in a particular type of tax and what we
spend on road funding. What this Government has been
about is to determine priorities between all of those
conflicting and competing programs. And, as you know,
the Prime Minister has just indicated, that in our seven
years we have increased funding in a period of very tight
fiscal restraint by 18 percent over and above the seven
years of our predecessors. That represents, in terms of
dollars, an additional $ 19.6 billion in today's terms, in
today's prices that we've put into the road system. We
shouldn't, any more than we say we'll determine how much
we'll put into education on the basis of how much income
tax school teachers pay. That would be absurd. It's
equally absurd for us to say that we will determine our
level of road funding on the basis of how much tax
motorists pay. Motorists still have kids at school, they
have parents and friends in hospital, they have parents
on pensions, they're concerned about defence and they
know that when they pay a fuel tax it goes to help the
Federal Government and the States. Because the States
pick up a fair amount of that as well, and local
government. It helps the three levels of government then
to meet those commitments. So we're not about y'know,
that whole question of hypothecation, determining how
much we'll put into roads on the basis of how much tax
comes from any particular source.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, to put this into
perspective, am I right in thinking that $ 100 million
will build about 20 kilometres of a four-lane highway and
if you split that between the States, it's a bit over
three kilometres each?
PM: Well, if that's what you regard it as the only way
in which you could spend this money, those statistics may
be accurate. Bob can confirm them or not. But if you
look at the statement you'll see that what we're saying
to the States is this money is this available to on
the priorities that you want to spend and it can include,
it's their decision, some assistance in regard to
relevant rail areas. So this is something which
supplements a position which we've already made clear
that that is a position of an 18 percent real increase in
overall funding over what existed before. It's not as
though here, this is all that's going to be available.
It's simply the recognition that if more can be done it
ought to be done, but it ought to be done in the sense of
fiscal responsibility. We're not going to have, as I
say, the drunken sailor approach of the Opposition. The
documents released today, Laurie, show this will be fully
funded. It will not mean therefore that other services
have to be cut or that you detrimentally effect your
situation. JOURNALIST: But don't you concede, Prime Minister, that
kilometres of four-lane highway across the nation is a
piddling contribution?
PM: If that's all that you were applying to roads and
that's exactly how you were going to use this amount.
Obviously it's a misrepresentation of the total
Commonwealth Government effort. I mean, either you say
that yes, well you're going to try and do something more
in identified areas of need and whether it's that sort of
highway that you're talking about or some other form of
outlay which will meet needs, is something to be
determined in association with the States.
JOURNALIST: But Mr Brown is talking about pouring money
into the Pacific Highway. I mean, it would hardly make
much impact at all there would it?
PM: Well, I think you heard what Mr Brown said, is that
if the New South Wales Government makes a decision in
respect of that amount of money which will be available
to it under this enhanced program, if they want to give
that priority then this money would be available for
those purposes if that was decided as a priority.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, there's a major road, major
tourist area from Sydney to Brisbane. Isn't it a farce
to say simply that this is the State's concern? It's
just an adjustment that you're making in terminology. It
sounds like buckpassing as to who's..
PM: No question of buckpassing. Mr Brown can say
something about this in a moment. Let me make the
general point that for better or for worse in this
country we live in a federal system where there is a
division of responsibility. That's not my creation or Mr
Brown's creation. That is the Constitutional fact of
life. They have a responsibility in the area of
education, for instance. They have a responsibility in
the area of roads. They have responsibilities to a whole
number of areas. But what my Government has done if you
like is to take the area of education and of roads just
to take those two we have made a massive increase in
the way in which the Federal Government provides
assistance to States in areas where they have a primary
responsibility. You want to look at education, you know
the figures are there. There's a more than doubling of
secondary education allowances, the trebling of Austudy,
all these sorts of things where we have supplemented the
fundamental responsibility of the States. And so it is
in the area of roads. I can't change the Constitution,
don't want to change the Constitution and create one
national Government. There are State governments with a
responsibility. What we've done is very significantly to
enhance, very significantly to enhance the Commonwealth
contributions. Just look at the figures. An 18 percent
real increase in funding by my Government compared to the
period of the Fraser Government. Put in annual terms,
that's $ 235 million per annum in real terms over and
above what was done before. And as I say, you've got the
$ 120 million black spot program and now this additional
$ 100 million a year program. I don't know whether you
want to add to that?
JOURNALIST: Why did you take 6 years to index road
funding?
BROWN: If perhaps I could supplement what the Prime
Minister has already said about that. I think it's quite
remarkable, you know, that we've become so blase about
the amount of money that's going into roads. The Prime
Minister has already indicated that from the three levels
of government, over the last seven years, there's been
almost $ 30,000 million that's gone into roads. And when
we think in terms of those we feel as though we can
dismiss new initiative which is going to put another
$ 430 million. That's not chicken feed, that's, that's
big dollars. That comes out of the taxpayers pocket and
the taxpayers are entitled to expect that that money will1
have been spent properly and this Government gives them
an absolute assurance that it will. That it will. $ 430
million is not chicken feed. That's a big injection into
the road system. It was the same sort of thing that was
said when the Prime Minister indicated that we would
provide another $ 110 million to assist the States to
remove some of those black spots, some of those dangerous
spots, some of those crash centres where people are
dying. We were told that a half, an extra half a million
dollars would have the effect of saving an extra one life
a year on average. $ 110 million means that the Hawke
Government will be assisting State governments and local
governments to save another 220 lives on average every
year. And some people people tell you it's peanuts.
Well, 220 lives a year really isn't peanuts and those
amounts are substantial. It's not, Laurie, just a
question of how much can be dual divided carriageway
for example can be constructed with $ 430 or $ 300 million
extra over the next three years. It's a question of what
we're going to put back on top of, and what we're putting
it on top of is a commitment over the period of the ACRD
program, for the Federal Government to fund the nation's
roads to an extent in excess of $ 6,000 million. These
are enormous amount. How can it possibly be said that
these are small amounts, or insignificant? And in
addition to what we've already done, we're going to look
at some of those other roads of national economic
importance on the Prime Minister's initiative. No Prime
Minister has ever shown so much concern for the national
road system or national land transport or road safety as
this Prime Minister has. And that's obvious to everyone.
We're meeting our rhetoric with funds, solid dollars that
the taxpayers are committing through us to supplement
those programs.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke or Mr Brown, are you happy with the
progress the State Governments have made in coming up
with a uniform set of road laws
PM: Well, Mr Brown's obviously been the one who's been
associated with the negotiation with the States and I
think he can obviously more easily answer that.
BROWN: Let me say that some of those attempts that we've
made to achieve uniformity, and the Prime Minister
referred to the fact that we'ye inherited a federal
system, yes we have. We've inherited a federal system.
We've inherited with all of those enormously important
Constitutional and democratic safeguards associated with
the fragmentation of power under federal systems. And
we'ye also inherited a number of problems and the one
that you refer to is one of them the question of
uniformity. We've said that a person who's driving a car
drunk doesn't suddenly do something moral and legal when
he or she reaches a State boundary. So we need that
uniformity. But as a result of some of initiatives that
we've taken I want to give credit to all of the State
Transport Ministers and Territorial Ministers from
wherever they come. We had it tested over forty years to
achieve uniformity in many of these critical areas. We
are now doing it, we are now doing it. Of course there
are some problems there, some sticking problems. I hope
that the State and Territory Transport Ministers and
governments will see their way clear to adopt the package
that the Prime Minister presented to them. And if they
do that, as they should, as they should, that will make
an enormous improvement in the whole question of road
safety right across Australia and we will start to reduce
that 2,800 people who died on our roads last year and
30,000 people who were injured on our roads last year, at
a national cost of $ 6.2 billion. We'll start to reduce
that, but we have to have the support and the cooperation
of State and Territory Transport Ministers and
increasingly, as a result of the sort of initiative that
was offered by the Prime Minister to them, increasingly
they' re responding.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, with the new impost on luxury
cars, there's likely to be some elasticity in that
market. If you don't get the amount of money that you're
anticipating as a result of the tax for this road
project, do you guarantee it will be made up from other
areas? PM: Yes. Let me make two points about that. We're
responsible in the way we go about this and in drawing up
the we asked for estimates from the best source
that's from Treasury. Now we can't do any better than
that and our figures which are contained in the
scoresheet are based on the information and advice
provided to us. So we are confident in the accuracy of
their advice. Obviously we have shown the capacity in
the past to find savings if it's necessary. Now if you
took the worst case assumption, if you took the worst
case assumption and there was some difference in the
elasticity outcome, if we can use the economic jargon,
then we would find the necessary minor additional
savings. We've shown the capacity to do that over this
period, but we've acted on the best advice available to
US. BROWN: In fact, could I say Mr Prime Minister, that $ 100
million by the way, tends to be on the conservative side.
It's very possible that because of the elasticity
considerations that you refer to, that the total amount
that would come in from that could be in excess of $ 100
million. As the Prime Minister has indicated we are
earmarking every dollar, every dollar from that to go
into roads, so
JOURNALIST: if it's a larger amount does that mean
BROWN: That's what our statement is indicating.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the question of tax
again, if there were to be further personal tax cuts in a
fourth term of the Labor Government, would they be fully
funded and not as a result of traffic
PM: Now, let's now get this, further tax cuts into
perspective. You know the answer I gave yesterday and
there's not a great deal of mileage in it I can tell you.
What I've said yesterday, I was asked a question would
there be further reductions. I said if, if it were
regarded as appropriate and economically responsible,
that would happen. There is nothing on the agenda about
further tax cuts. I'm simply saying in the course of the
term, if that were to emerge. Now the statement I made
carries it's own answer. We're not going to be in
terms of what I said yesterday we're not going to be
talking about tax cuts if it were not economically
responsible. It wouldn't be economically responsible if
you couldn't do it in a way which lets the integrity of
overall budget considerations in shape. But I can
assure you that it's not something which is, you know,
specifically on the agenda. It was an answer to a
question which I believe was asked in good faith and it
was nothing more than that. If a circumstance arose
where you thought it was the appropriate thing to do,
well then you'd obviously consider it and do it, but it's
not on the agenda.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, are you concerned developments
on the Japanese financial markets could very likely delay
any fall in interest rates in Australia?
PM: Well, I noticed the comments in today's financial
Press from within the financial community that their
expectations of a capacity for further falls in
Australian interest rates could still be accommodated
within some fall in the Japanese market associated with
an increase in Japanese rates. I have no reason to
differ with that suggestion that's been made from within
the market.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in the event that the uncertainty
in the Tokyo market were to gain momentum, and create a
shakeout in your financial how would the Government
handle the situation here in a caretaker capacity?
PM: Well, obviously there are some things that you can
do in a caretaker period. We would not walk away from
the responsibilities we have for the management of this
country. But we obviously want to honour the type of
convention which says you don't make major decisions
during an election period. But I have no reason to
contemplate that any such major decisions in the economic
area would, would be required.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, there's been allegations
that while you've been dogged by the pilots and their
families, the children have been placed in danger by your
entourage etc
PM: Their children have been placed in danger by me and
my entourage? You would have to be joking. I mean, let
me interrupt here. I will not cop, I simply will not cop
any suggestion that any children of pilots have been put
in danger by anything that I or my people have done. My
people, Federal Police, have contacted the Australian
Federation of Air Pilots when they saw that these people
were wantonly bringing young children into potentially
dangerous situations and said, look the Prime Minister
takes the view, of course that you are perfectly
entitled, as you are, to demonstrate, make your point of
views known. But they pleaded with them and said, look
don't have little kids there because you never know what
may happen, so please don't have them there. And the
people from the police who contacted them were given the
assurance it wouldn't happen and we saw yesterday I
mean, an appalling situation yesterday. There was one of
these pilots in his stolen uniform, I might say, it's
quite clear they were in stolen uniforms, with a small
child in his arms. I mean, the irresponsibility of these
people. We're the ones who pleaded with them not to
create that type of situation.
JOURNALIST: Back to road funding, Prime Minister.
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: It took six years for the Federal Goverrnent
to index road funding. Can you give an assurance now
that it is indexed, that it will be continue to be so?
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, this morning on talkback radio you
condemned caller in regard to Asian immigration. He
said he was backed by opinion polls. How many
Australians, do you think share a racist position with
that caller?
PM: I don't know the answer to that question. But you
would have to say that in a country of 17 million peoplee
there are obviously some who share his mistaken and
dangerous view. There are obviously some, I can't put a
figure on it. But what I can say with absolute certainty
is that as long as I am Prime Minister of this country
there will be no aid, comfort, succour or support given
to those views and I say it, as I said this morning on
that program, for two reasons. The moral reason I think
should be clear to everybody. In my life there is
something that has been fundamental to me from as long as
I can remember and that is the repugnance of any
suggestion that any human being on the face of this earth
is inferior because of the colour of his or her skin, the
shape of their eyes, or anything like that. I find that
just morally repugnant and I will resist that attitude
with all the force and vigour at my command. I also said
that it was economically insane and indeed treacherous to
the interests of this country. I made the obvious
point that we live, fortunately, in the most dynamic,
fastest growing economic region of the world. And what
sort of condemnation do we hand on for our children and
their children if we say to the nations and the people of
Asia, you're a second-class mob or a third-class mob. We
want to trade with you, but as far as our immigration
program is concerned, you can't come here because you are
inferior to other people in the world. Very rightly and
inevitably in those circumstances, the nations of Asia
would say, alright if we are inferior citizens, don't
worry about trading with us. So if you want to do
something which would most certainly condemn, the future
generations of this country, to a second or third class
economic status, just embrace that morally objectionable,
repugnant philosophy.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you think the Reserve
Bank Governor should be commenting on issues like foreign
debt during an election campaign which bound to
become an issue, and do you agree with his assessment of
Australia's position..
PM: I see no reason why Governors of the Reserve Bank
shouldn't make comments. I guess no-one, including
yourself, would probably object to him making comments if
they were getting up the Government's nose. Of course
they're not. They are objectively making a point that
the policy stances of the Government are relevant, are
working. So that's the basic answer to your question. I
have no objection to the Governor of the Reserve Bank
making comments at this time any more than I have an
objection to the Business Council of Australia just
coincidentally having a summit on debt during an
election. I mean, I know there'll be no political
significance in that, they've assured us of that.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, if you're re-elected, would you
see yourself making some changes to your mega-ministry?
And secondly, would you support what seems now a
reasonably widespread feeling in Caucus that there should
be a bit of opening up, freeing up of the ballot for
ministry after the election, for conditions of the
ministry?
PM: I think the mega-ministry system has worked very
very well. Let me make this point that I'll at a later
stage of the campaign be developing in some more detail.
But if you wanted one sign of the gross irresponsibility
of the Opposition and the price which they are asking
Australia to pay for their internal hatreds and
divisions, it is their promise that they would break up
the mega-ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. There is
not one analyst of the Australian political and economic
situation who does not acknowledge the appropriateness,
the effectiveness of having Foreign Affairs and Trade
joined. Everyone knows that that's right. But because
of the hatred and the bitterness and the divisions
between the National Party and the Liberal Party and for
no other reason they are saying they'll break up Foreign
Affairs and Trade. And at, may I say, an absolute
criminality as far as the interests of Australia are
concerned to accommodate the bitterness of the coalition.
So the answer is no I will not be changing the megaministry
ministry concept. It may be Michelle, let me
say this, that you may want to see perhaps in one or two
areas a marginal increase in ministerial assistance. Let
me be quite specific in the area that Bob's in, Transport
and Communications. I think the concept is working well.
There's been in this last period however a large number
of very significant issues in both Transport and
Communications. It may be, and I'll talk after the
election with my colleagues who've been in that area to
see whether they think that perhaps a little bit more
ministerial assistance would be desirable there. That's
no change of the mega-ministry situation but it's just an
intelligent assessment of whether some additional
assistance would be desirable. Now as far as the second
part of your question no I remember that the second
part of your question. I witnessed with a certain amount
of interest after the first election that the ministry
was able to persuade their colleagues that there was no
need for a ballot. Substantially the same the second
time. But of course that's not surprising. It's not
surprising that the Caucus took the view that the
ministry was good because, as you know, Dr Hewson doesn't
get many things right, but he did get one thing right. I
remind you of what Dr Hewson said. Dr Hewson said that
the Hawke Government is the most professional government,
is the most professional government and probably has the
best ministry since the war. Now Dr Hewson is right.
Absolutely right. It's a view shared by the Caucus in
the past. A tremendous ministry. Now I think, having
said that, that
JOURNALIST: They all want to get into it though.
PM: Yes, well it's a class act. As Dr Hewson has said,
the best since the war. I mean it's the one thing that
Hewson said that I think he got absolutely right. Now I
think that after the next election, which we'll win, that
there probably will be an election because we are in the
fortunate position, the very fortunate position as
distinct from our opponents that we have a great fund of
talent. A great first eleven or first eighteen or
whatever particular number you want to choose. A great
frontbench and a lot of talent on the backbench. So I'm
in the fortunate position of knowing that after the
election when they have an election in the Caucus that
once again I will be given a ministry of outstanding
talent. JOURNALIST: The Opposition tell us that their
sophisticated reception meters
PM: How does that feel Bob? What about here, how
does that feel? Now when I say boo, what do you feel
like? This is serious of course.
JOURNALIST: Point taken Prime Minister.
PM: Thanks.
JOURNALIST: They're now going to rejig their campaign
because the electorate, or at least the people who are
plugged into these meters, weren't, I believe, assured by
your statements on living standards. In other words,
they've detected a huge credibility gap out there in the
electorate for you with your assurances on living
standards. PM: Well thank you Paul for that question. Let me say
first of all in regard to the basic point about the
question as to what was the reaction to the debate.
You'll notice that I said afterwards that I was relaxed
about the outcome and I'm pleased to see that generally
speaking people seem to have made a judgement about the
debate. I don't go to that any further. But on the
question of living standards well just before I get to
that I must, I just really do want to say something about
the debate and reactions a little bit more generally.
fascinating position of course now where Mr Peacock
is seriously asking you to believe, all of you, is asking
you to believe, all you people, that it was a clever
strategy that they'd worked out before the debate not to
ask many questions. Really. They sat down and they
worked out before the debate having a national
advertising campaign there are questions to be asked of
the Prime Minister. Consistent with that public
advertising campaign that there were questions to be
asked of the Prime minister, then given the opportunity
on national television when they had the Prime Minister
there, that they decided not to ask him any questions. I
simply ask you do you believe Mr Peacock when he says
that? I mean there's one thing that came out of the
debate very clearly and it's this. Not only have the
Liberals not got the answers, they haven't even got the
questions. Now let me go onto the question of living
standards. I don't know how many mistakes that Mr
Peacock made in the debate but just a few have hit the
headlines today. Could he have got the Landcare promises
more mixed up than he did? I mean you've got
spokespersons for the Leader of the Opposition's office
running around trying to say what he meant and what he
didn't mean and how much he's committed and how much he
hasn't committed. He was quite wrong on the question of
what his Opposition spokesman had said on allowing
mineral exploration in Stage 2 of Kakadu Park, the
question I asked him. He was wrong in his answer.
Because it's come out quite clearly, as I said on the
program, that in October, as far back as October, that
his shadow spokesman had indicated that there could be
mineral exploration in Stage 2. And if you, well just go
on and on, all the things he got wrong. But coming to
living standards, he was wrong on that. The University
of NSW, the independent study there, has indicated that
on average there has been an improvement in standards.
That doesn't mean that in certain categories that it has
been reasonably tight. It does mean, when you undertake
that analysis, that this Government has undertaken to do
what it should do, and that is to really look after those
most in need in this community. I can't tell you just
how touching it is to receive letters, as I do, from
people saying what the Family Allowance Supplement has
meant to them. Now just think, just get an idea of the
dimension of what that's meant for standards of people
who most need help. You take the case of a single income
family on $ 320 week. Now the family allowance supplement
has meant for them they get $ 110 a week tax free with
three kids. $ 110 a week tax free which is equivalent to
a wage increase of $ 170 a week. That's the human element
of the the national aggregate which is over $ 2 billion a
year being paid to low income families to help them look
after their kids. So when you talk about standards, you
don't just look at what's happened to real wages, as Mr
Peacock has said. But standards and real disposable
income is made up, as I've said and I repeat, it's made
up of these things. It's made up of wages, money wage
movements of prices, of tax cuts, of jobs. How many more
employment and the families, and it's made up of what
happens to social justice payments. And when we take all
those components, then on average this is not Hawke's
statistic, it's the statistic and the accepted statistic
of the independent body of the University of NSW that on
average those standards have increased. So it's quite
clear. But the final point, let me make. I'm rather
surprised really, if I may say so, that the analysts
haven't picked this up. I've made it clear in the
Parliament before. I suggest it's worth pursuing Mr
Peacock. Just have a look, I suggest again, refresh your
memory on page 53, page 53 of the document which they
entitled Future Directions and which I christened Futile
Diversions. Look at page 53 which you'll recall Mr
Peacock said Future Directions still had authority within
the Liberal Party. On page 53 of Future Directions you
will see this. The acknowledgement that there'd been a
change in the terms of trade which had affected
Australia. And then the criticism, the direct criticism
in these terms. Labor has attempted to protect certain
sections of the community from the effect of a reduced
national income. Now please understand the fundamental
significance. There's nothing more significant in a
sense in this whole misrepresentation campaign of the
Opposition. What are they trying to do in this campaign?
They're trying to say there's been a reduction in
standards and attacking us. In their own document on
page 53 they said that there'd been a reduced national
income flowing from the terms of trade, a reduced
national income and attacked me, and attacked the
Government for trying to protect certain sections of the
community from the effect of that reduced national
income. Now you can't have it both ways. You can't be
parading around the country attacking this Government
because there's been a reduction in standards and in your
own document on page 53 attack the Government for saying
that in the face of a reduction in national income you've
attempted to protect certain sections of the community.
Mr Peacock ought to be nailed on it. I mean is it
possible to have it both ways? Can you on page 53 of the
document say there's been a decline in national income
which means a fall in standards and attack the Government
for trying to protect standards and then on the other
hand run around and attack the Government because
standards have fallen.
JOURNALIST: With general reference to living standards
and specific reference to the events of lunchtime
yesterday what's the price of a pot?
PM: A middy is $ 1.20 mate and let me say, let me say
When I went to this group who were all very supportive I
was going to put more on and they said no, $ 5 is enough.
I thought $ 5 was a bit light-on myself. But $ 5 was
enough. But $ 1.20 I believe is a middy mate. A lot more
that when I was consuming a few of them too.
JOURNALIST: In your speech on microreform on
airlines airlines deregulation. Will you go to the
next Labor Party conference and pursue your attempt to
get a change in policy on the ownership of Australian
Airlines? PM: I said on the program this morning we've got some
processes underway in the party where they're looking at
what's involved in the funding capital requirements of
the airlines, Michelle. We'll get the reports and
consideration of those committees what they feel about
it. The Minister will report to me. We'll make up our
mind in the light of those reports.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if you go back to debt for
one minute, do you accept the assurance of the BCA that
the debt summit is not politically motivated or do you
think it's designed to damage your
PM: I suppose, I mean if they wanted to be absolutely
sure had any political connotations, I suppose they
could put it off until after the election. I mean then
no-one could possibly say, could they, no basis for
criticism. I don't think that's occurred to them. I
think they think it's appropriate to have it at this
time.
ends