TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, RAMADA RENAISSANCE, SYDNEY
16 MARCH 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: I have released today a paper which is proof
positive of what I've been saying from the beginning of
this campaign that a Party or a coalition which is not
capable of governing itself is not capable of governing
the country. We have the situation where after the last
election I reduced the number of departments,
Commonwealth, to 18 and now Mr Peacock is saying that
he'll increase that to 25 or 26 he doesn't seem to be
quite sure which. This is not an exercise in good
Government. It is indeed the opposite. It is a
reflection of the fact that the Liberals and National
Party in a hypothetical government situation would not be
able to live with 18 departmental situation because they
could not cope with having a Minister, a senior Minister
and a junior Minister from different parts of the
coalition. The best proof of a way in which Mr Peacock
and the Opposition have prepared to sacrifice the
interests of this country, of course, comes from the
critically important amalgamated Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade. Peacock's own words here are very
revealing because he said of that amalgamation that he'd
been an advocate of it beforehand and it's worked quite
well, but he will abolish it. Why? Because historically
you have a situation that the Liberals have always wanted
Foreign Affairs and the National Party have wanted Trade
and they simply did not have the strength, Mr Peacock did
not have the strength to manage that situation. If
there's ever been a time in which Australia's interest
demands that the amalgamation continue, it is now of
course, because trade issues are intrinsically bound up
wifth our foreign relations and at this time in this year,
1990, -we..-are-in-the final stages up-to-the end of 1990 in
the important negotiations under the MTN Uruguay Round.
These negotiations will determine the capacity of
Australian industries to have access to freely, to
international markets. And it is a time when it is
absolutely imperative that the ministerial and
bureaucratic structure of the amalgamated Foreign Affairs
and Trade Departments be kept intact so that Australia's
interests are advanced. It is an act of vandalism and
politically criminal negligence to have a situation where
because you can't control your own internal divisions you
2
would dismember the bureaucratic structure which is
necessary to advance Australia's interests. It's
interesting that while Mr Peacock obviously doesn't
consider that he would have the strength to handle this
situation that Mr Howard seems to have a quite different
approach. He'd previously, when he was Leader of the
Opposition, welcomed the new arrangements and I refer to
those in the Press release. He obviously regarded
himself as strong enough to be able to contemplate
managing the sort of situation, something, which
unfortunately is beyond Mr Peacock.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one week out where do you
think you are? How is the campaign going? Are you going
to win?
PM: Well I feel that we have handled the campaign well.
Obviously, Peter, in any campaign that you have if you
could run every single minute of it over again, I guess
there are some things that you may do slightly
differently, but you don't have that luxury and I believe
that, looking back over the campaign, we have handled it
well. I have tried to discharge the two areas of
responsibility that I see myself as having in this
campaign. They are first, to explain to the people of
Australia what are the policies that I and my Government
and Party have for the future of this country and I've at
all times tried to give that the emphasis. At the same
time, secondly, I have also attempted to discharge the
responsibility that I have to expose the inadequacies and
indeed the fundamental dangers for Australia of the
alternative policies of the Opposition. On the evidence
available it seems to me that the sort of plan and
program and tactics that I worked out before the campaign
commenced with my colleagues is working. We have
steadfastly adhered to those concepts that I've just
mentioned and our program has been consistent in trying
to do that. We haven't found it necessary now as we get
to the final week of the campaign to press panic buttons,
to change itineraries and to talk about having mass
rallies which is what's happening on the other side. But
having said that, let me say this, I still believe I have
to work very hard and I will be doing that up until a
week tonight and then it'll be a matter for decision by
the electorate.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the level of unemployment's
gone-up, -it!. s up.. to6.5-percent Is-this what you set
out to achieve?
PM: Well what I set out to achieve, Paul, was a lowering
of the level of activity in this country because we were
operating at too high a level in terms of the imports
that were coming in. Let me go to the question of the
employment figures so that we can have them in the
appropriate context. What is happening is that there has
been a further increase in the participation rate which
has given us a record high of participation and we are,
however, experiencing a rate of employment growth of 3.2
percent and we can compare that with a rate of some over
percent last year. Now we expect employment growth
this year of around about three and a half percent which
is higher than two and three quarter percent which was
expected at budget time and the expectation that I have
in regard to unemployment, Paul, is that it will be about
6.25 percent, the average for 1989/ 90 which is the figure
which we put at the time of the budget.
JOURNALIST: Will the level of unemployment in fact go
much higher as we go into the next financial year?
PM: I wouldn't expect that it would because you would
expect these things to happen. Firstly, it is our
judgement and the judgement of most commentators that we
are, in the jargon of the economists, going to have a
soft landing which means, simply this, that we will come
down from the high rates of growth of product and of
employment that have characterised the past, but we will
still have an economy of economic growth and of
employment growth. As there is a lowering in the level
of activity you can be expected that there may be a
decline in the participation rate and of course the move
upwards in the unemployment rate has been a function of
an increase in the participation rate. It is worth
remembering again the statistic which I have advanced
before and that is that if you had the same participation
rate in Australia that I inherited when I became Prime
Minister, you would have an unemployment level in this
country of 1.2 percent.
JOURNALIST: On the question of Ford, it seems that Ford
Australia wants guaranteed protection 1992. Could
you say what
PM: No I can't, but let's get to this question of, of
Ford directly. What you've had here is a blatant and,
one can only assume, deliberate misrepresentation by the
journalist in question. Now he's got his facts wrong. I
mean, quite fundamentally wrong. First he didn't know,
or if he did he chose not to state accurately, how many
people in the meeting. He said it was two people. There
was, in fact, three people there and the people that
were there, the major parties, the Minister and the
Chairman of Ford have in fact repudiated unqualifiably
lire assertions in the, in the article of yesterday. And
-with--a certain amount.-of . grudgingxetraction, the
journalist in question has in fact this morning said,
well I guess if I was rewriting it today I might phrase
it a little differently. It would be hoped if he did, he
might get somewhere near the truth and the facts are that
the, that the Chairman of Ford, Mr Jack Nasser, has made
the position quite clear and let me get it on the record
as -to what he said. In specific terms, Mr Nasser
categorically denied, now it's pretty straight,
categorically denied that he'd told Senator Button that
Ford was likely to quit fullscale local manufacturing
after 1992. Without reading the whole of his release,
let me go to the other part. He said he'd had the
discussion, the topics were far-reaching covering a wide
range of subjects including Ford's already announced
intention to invest about $ 1.2 billion in Australia over
the next five years and you know what that goes to, Mr
Nasser said. Our investment in the past and our plans to
spend an average $ 250 million a year, over the next five
years, which is relevant to the period of your question,
show Ford's strong commitment to remaining a viable
manufacturer in Australia and to continuing development
of export markets. This investment has been underpinned
by strong profit performance. In addition Mr Nasser
strongly denied the claim in a news report that Ford
wanted to become more or less an assembler in Australia.
This is not an option that makes sense for Australia, Mr
Nasser said and he also said, during recent years
considerable progress in productivity and quality has
been achieved. So let's have the facts right. What
you've got is a beatup misrepresentation by a Melbourne
journalist which has been repudiated by the people who
were at the meeting and in the repudiation, the clear
statement of intentions to invest $ 1.2 billion over this
next five year period. Now as to the question of the
context within which the, that is being done, it's also
interesting to note in this area also find the
comment by Mr Howard if I could I think I've got it
here somewhere another area of difference where the
Opposition is trying to latch on to there being some
problem in this area. This is interesting, Mr Howard's
comment earlier this week, I think it was in the
discussion, it was, it was in the discussion he had with
Senator Button I acknowledge the fact that the steel
plant did a lot of good in that industry and I
acknowledge the fact that the car plan brought a degree
of certainty to that industry and that certainty was
reinforced by the bipartisan support it largely received
from the Opposition when it was brought in. In other
words, we've had a situation in Australia where before we
came to office, no certainty, the industry didn't know
where it was going. We've brought certainty to the car
industry, a fact acknowledged by Mr Howard and within
that certainty you have Ford asserting now another $ 1.2
billion investment intention. Now at the, as we will, as
we've done everywhere in economic management before, so
in this area, as we come to the next stage there will be
dñ scussions with the industry, that is with the
manufacturers,. there.. will-. be-discussions with the unions
and that's the way we always do it and we will work out
what is an appropriate environment in Australia for a
continuing growth of the industry. Now that's how we've
operated before and that's how we'll operate in the
future.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: There is no suggestion to me that they asked for any
such commitment and indeed you will see that what has
been said by the Chairman of Ford involves a repudiation
of the story as it's been. I mean, it's a complete
beatup. Obviously, obviously the manufacturers in the
motor vehicle industry will want to have discussions with
the Government about what are our plans for the future
and those discussions, as I've said, will be held. But
you can't, I mean, you will be battling like hell, Niki
if you, I mean I know you're struggling to find something
for support, you know, something in favour of the
Opposition I mean, there's not much around but you
will be drawing an extraordinarily long bow to beat this
story up any further. It hasn't got any legs, my friend.
It hasn't got any legs because the major participants
have repudiated it.
JOURNALIST: Is continuing protection necessary to retain
the viability of the car manufacturing industry of
Australia post ' 92?
PM: There will, some degree of protection post ' 92 will
be necessary, yes.
JOURNALIST: Will that be a lower degree of protection.
Would you in fact envisage that in the post 1992 plan you
continue to scale down protection further?
PM: As I've said before, Paul, I have a philosophical
and economic commitment to lower levels of protection. I
mean, I'm not now revealing a State secret. It's
something that's on the record as far as I'm concerned
before and what we have done in being the only Government
in Australian history to effect significant tariff
reductions without disruption in industry we're the
only Government that's ever done it we've gone about
the process of holding discussions with both sides of
industry. So we're entitled on this issue to be examined
on our record. What's the Hawke Government done? Answer
significantly reduce the levels of protection in this
country. Second question, how's it done it? It's done
it by a process of effective discussion and consultation
with both sides of industry and you get the comparison
there with, you know, what happened in the ' 70s where the
consultation didn't take place and you had so much
disruption. JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PNM:. hat.. no-. tariff. on the . Australian.. tariff on the
Australian motor vehicle industry by the end of the
century? You would have to have a question mark in your
mind about that. What is certain, Milton, is that what
we will do will maintain a commitment to a, a gradual
lowering of protection, but in the context where that
will be done in consultation with the industry and both
sides of the industry and in a way which is going to
maximise benefit for the Australian community. I mean,
that's what we've done, that's our record and we'll
continue to do it.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, can you give us some idea of what
your timetable will be for the Garnaut Report if you're
re-elected? And secondly, who will be the Trade, special
Trade Minister, given that Mr Duffy might be moving on to
another portfolio?
PM: Yes, well, I've answered I've had really both
questions put to me before in slightly different form.
As far as timetable is concerned I've answered it in this
way which is the appropriate way that is that we've
already initiated the processes of consideration of the
range of recommendations of Ross Garnaut's report and I
have indicated that I want those processes to be handled
efficiently and as quickly as possible, as consistent
with consideration of the recommendations and we have
structure in the Structural Adjustment Committee to
examine those. I would be receiving, with my colleagues
on the Structural Adjustment Committee, the first reports
of those various bodies that examining the range of
recommendations this year and after we're re-elected and
we'll consider those reports and then on the basis of
reports, get into the negotiations with the various
sectors of industry which need to be consulted. Now it
would be, in those circumstances, it would be quite
irresponsible for me to say, well, here's the, here's the
timetable. All I can say is that, as we've demonstrated
in the past, it will be an efficient consideration of the
recommendations both at the ministerial and bureaucratic
levels and then with industry. Now as to the second part
of your question, well, I'd you know, like to give you a
scoop, but I can't. I'm in the very fortunate position
however that I've got a range of talent. What you can be
sure of is that Australia's interests in the
international trading area will be very, very effectively
carried through. John Dawkins did an outstanding job and
so has Michael Duffy and Australia's interests will
continue to be well represented.
JOURNALIST: But isn't it your position on this, not
willing to nominate the Trade Minister now a
criticism of the Opposition today about them splitting up
the Trade department?
PM: In what way..
J" URNALIST: Well, I mean-
PM: Not in a way that's obvious to me, please explain.
JOURNALIST: there' s a great degree of uncertainty
PM: There's not a great degree
JOURNALIST: who your Trade Minister will be..
negotiations.
PM: Not a great deal of uncertainty, not a great deal of
uncertainty. We've got an election on and as a result of
the election there will be some changes of portfolio. I
have demonstrated, in seven years as Prime Minister, that
in the decisions I make about the people I put in charge
of portfolios and in charge of Australia's various
interests, that we haven't put a foot wrong. And I mean,
who's to say, I mean, let's be hypothetical about it,
who's to say if the assumption you make about Michael's
move it's assumed that I might move Michael Duffy to
the Attorney-General's position. Now that's a, that's an
intelligent sort of assumption, but it would be
conceivable in those circumstances wouldn't it that I
could have an overlap period where I would ask Michael
Duffy, particularly as we now go to the end of this year
in the MTN Uruguay Round, that I could request Michael
Duffy to have an overlap period to take it through to the
end of that period. Now it's something, if I were
considering shifting Michael to the Attorney General, I
think that's somethinglI would have in my mind.
JOURNALIST: Mr Peacock with whom I talked yesterday
in Launceston on the recent trade agreements
concluded by your Government with the Soviet Union and
second, the Soviet Union in the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation. What's your position on this?
PM: Well, one of the great misfortunes of the Australian
political scene both in regard to domestic politics and
international, the international aspect of our relations
is that we have conservative parties who, as I've put it
before, conduct themselves by looking into the rear
vision mirror of history. Their attitude towards our
international relations are still conditioned by some
perception of, of a previous cold war situation. They
find it difficult to come to grips with what Mr Peacock
in other circumstances might describe as the harsh
realities. And the harsh reality is, I might say to Mr
Peacock, that the world we live in today is a different
one and that one of the marks of my Government has been
that while we have maintained and strengthened the
alliance relationship with the United States, we've also
developed a very effective relationship with the Soviet
Union under its new leadership, Mr Gorbachev, now
President Gorbachev. And I welcome the opportunity that
I've had to develop those relations with the Soviet Union
c -rd it is very important that as part of that
-development,--we-should-extend . our-trading relations.
Anyone who aspires for the political leadership of this
country and is questioning the good sense of extending
relationships with the Soviet Union condemns themselves
out of their own mouth as being unfit, I think, to assume
leadership in this country. Now as to the second part of
your question about APEC, it is the case that the Soviet
Union has indicated an interest in becoming involved with
the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation development for
which I've been responsible. Now I think at this stage,
it is premature to talk about the inclusion of the Soviet
Union in APEC. That by no means is an indication that at
some stage their involvement would not be relevant as
the Soviet Union is a country with a Pacific border and
with interest in the Pacific and with legitimate
interests, but I think it stretches the imagination at
this point to classify the Soviet Union in the same
degree of involvement in the Asia Pacific area as the
countries who are foundationally involved. But I think
it would not only be the attitude of Australia, but I
think it would be the attitude of the other countries in
the APEC forum that as time development, as time develops
and particularly as the economy of the Soviet far east
develops, and particularly as the development of the
Soviet far east economy is a function of cooperation with
countries of APEC, then in those circumstances it may
become appropriate to think of some Soviet involvement in
the forum itself.
JOURNALIST: clarify this protection question again,
Mr Hawke philosophical commitment in this area
PM: I don't regard it as unclarified by the way.
JOURNALIST: Well it's certainly unclarified to me.
Given your philosophical commitment in this area, will
you be speeding up in the next term, the rate of
protection reduction?
PM: The speed at which we will be doing it will be an
outcome of a consideration of the, particularly of the,
of the Garnaut report and of the consultation that we
have with industry. My philosophical position and my
position speaking as an economist, is that I am committed
to the fastest possible rate of protection lowering which
is consistent with optimum economic outcomes. So that,
and that's not jargon because what we've had to do in the
period up till now in achieving the very significant
tariff productions that we have and which have been
welcomed within Australia and internationally, that's
W been an outcome, not only of decision making in the
Cabinet room, but of discussions with both sides of
industry. JOURNALIST: So the answer
PM: The answer to the question is that we will be
attempting to increase the rate of tariff reduction as
quickly.. as-. possible.
JOURNALIST: And does that apply to both the car industry
and also the clothing and textile
PM: It applies to all sections of, of industry. What
we've done is in the approach of 1988 we recognised that
in particular, the TCF area and the, and the motor
vehicle which had its separate set of arrangements and we
will be now in our fourth term, discussing with those
industries as well, as with others, what is the, is the
maximum rate of lowering of protection which is
consistent with the optimum economic output in this
country. So, in other words, you've got a Government
which has a philosophical commitment to tariff reductions
and I don't think it can be made much clearer than that.
JOURNALIST: The industry, the car industry would be
unviable PM: It's not a position which I'm prepared to be
dogmatic about. It's precisely the sort of thing that
I'd want to talk with the industry about. I mean, good
Government and good decision making is not about standing
up on a platform and saying, oh someone said 15 percent
are you happy with that? That's not the way you make
decisions. What you do is to have your bureaucracy, your
competent people, consider recommendations that are put
before you, for instance, like Garnaut and say now come
on, we want an analysis of what you think the best
outcomes are. Then you have your relevant Ministers
discuss these with industry, with manufacturers and with
the representatives of employees in the industry and then
you assume the responsibility at the end of that process
of making a decision. Now my approach will be to try and
have a tariff level which is at the lowest possible level
consistent with the maintenance of a viable industry in
this country. Now you can't be more specific than that.
I mean, that's my philosophical framework, the lowest
level of tariff protection which is consistent with a
viable industry in this country.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you've endorsed Mr Keating's
guarantee of real wage increases in each of the next
three years, but you've also said you've got no inflation
forecasts for years two and three. Does that mean that
you're guaranteeing real wage increases regardless of the
rate of inflation?
PM: It means that we are making assumptions about what
the likely inflation outcome will be. I mean, I noticed
that you've got your knickers in a knot about this
before. But it's a very, very simple proposition really,
which does not, you know, doesn't require much
intellectual capacity to follow. Where we have got so
far in the negotiations with the ACTU has given us a
position where the wages pipeline, a concept of which I
tfrink you are familiar, coming out of the end of this
. process. will . be smaller. than the.. one we inherited as
we've gone into this one. On that basis we are assuming
a lowering of the inflation rate. But it is not the
practice it never has been when you get up at budget
time and say what your inflation outlook is for the next
year to say and for the next year it is going to be
precisely that and the next year it is going to be
precisely that. What you do is to say this is what our
inflation outlook is for the next year and to give an
indication of the way in which you think things will
move. I believe as a result of the fact that we've
negotiated a sensible outcome with the unions, 7 percent,
with which we associate a 6 percent inflation outcome and
with which we associate a lower pipeline effect at the
end of that, that it makes sense, Greg, to be talking
about a lowering of the inflation rate. When the
appropriate time comes we will put the figures on that
for the next year.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in answer to Niki Savva earlier
you suggest that support the Opposition, do you
PM: I didn't talk about editorial at all, I was
answering a questioner.
JOURNALIST: You said obviously you're looking for
something PM: You said editorial. I was answering a questioner.
JOURNALIST: Melbourne Herald
PM: No I was certainly not. Have a look at the
transcript dear boy, I mean, I think you are the one
that asked me that question over in the docks in
Fremantle too. I mean have a bad night.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke that we could well see
increased political instability in PNG. What would you
consider, would you consider some sort of escalation of
our military or otherwise? What would you consider
to be appropriate?
PM: No I am not talking about an escalation of military
commitment beyond what we have already, it's a matter
of public record of what we have done in terms of saying
that we would assist in the growth of numbers. But that
was something which has been announced weeks and weeks
ago. We have not considered anything beyond that. I had
the opportunity of talking last night by telephone with
the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Rabble Namaliu, a
person I have known for very very many years and he
assured me of these things. He assured me first of all
that there would be no support for this drunken exercise
of Tohian's by anyone within the PNGDF and only a very
limited response from within the police forces. So he
was saying to me, last night in the conversation, that he
vs confident of support of the military forces for
constitutional. oprocesses... hesecond thing that he told
me was that as far as the Opposition was concerned they
broadly supported the position of the Government on this
issue, as they should. And therefore he anticipated no
further trouble. I certainly said to him, of course,
that I confirm the commitment of the Australian
Government, confirm the commitment of the Australian
Govlernment to proper constitutional processes in Papua
New Guinea.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just to get back to that
earlier questions, I know you don't want to appear to
be cocky or complacent, but what are the odds right now
on Saturday
PM: The only odds I will be thinking about in the next
24 hours is if I get a chance to look at the Sportsman
tonight, the ones that are running around in Sydney and
Melbourne and see if I can work out perhaps a couple of
good bets tomorrow. I don't think it is helpful for me
to be putting odds on it. All I can say is that I think
we have campaigned sensibly and well and
constructively. The indications that are there seem to
be that there has been, on balance, a favourable response
to that. We have still got a week to go and I will be
campaigning as hard as I can in that week. I am not
putting odds on it.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, back on the employment for a
second, isn't it a fact that some of the increase in the
participation rate has been due to women and housewives
going out into the workforce seeking extra work to help
pay off mortgages? Don't you concede that there is a lot
of pain out there in mortgage belt and what will you be
offering them over the next week to ensure they vote for
PM: I won't be offering anything new over the next week.
I will be reiterating what I have said during the
campaign. Just let me get this point straight about the
increase in the participation rate. It is true,
obviously, that some women have gone to work because of
their desire and what they perceive to be a necessity to
meet added burdens that's a fact. But don't overlook
the fact that we are also undergoing in this country, and
we have been since 1983, the quite fundamental
restructuring of the labour force in the sense that we
have deliberately moved as a Government to remove
inhibitions and discrimination against women being in the
workforce. You have got to understand that very many
women want not just as a matter of economic necessity,
but as a question of personal fulfilment to be in the
workforce. I mean, don't let's have ourselves bound down
by some historical precept that all women regard their
fulfilment of their desires as simply being in the home.
There are many who do, many who do, and their position is
t~ tally respected by this Government. But it is also the
fact.-in this -country. and in inany... nthers. -that women
increasingly see their fulfilment, not just in the home,
but as being part of the workforce and that is why we
have deliberately as an active Government done everything
we can to ensure that all areas of discrimination and
barriers are removed. And within the education system
may I say, also are doing everything we possibly can to
ensure that the education system is structured in a way
that all vocations are open to girls as well as to boys.
Now, you say what will I be saying in this last week to
those who particularly have gone to work to help the
family meet added burdens? I will be saying these things
to them, as I have been saying during this campaign, that
I am neither sadist nor masochist as I have been saying
before. Hawke is an intelligent Prime Minister who
hasn't had a tight monetary policy because he thinks it
is clever or smart to do it just for the fun of doing it.
The simple fact is that in the previous year we had 8
percent increase in consumption, a 4 percent increase in
production with a gap being filled by imports in a way
which was not sustainable into the future. Therefore
where we had tight fiscal policy, no argument about that,
four successive years of real reductions of Commonwealth
outlays cumulatively representing 8.1 percent, the
tightest fiscal policy in the history of this country,
tight wages policy. Now in all those circumstances we,
with the growth and consumption that took place, had to
tighten the other arm of monetary policies. I will then
be saying that that tightening of monetary policy is
working, no-one is now arguing that it is not working and
0 atnhde reKfeoartei ngI mwialkle bteh ats awyei ngh avteh atn owt her eajcuhdegde mtehnet tphoasti tiHoawnke
where interest rates can fall, mortgage rates, that that
is a judgement which on the evidence is shared by the
banking community and with a continuation of our policies
of fiscal rectitude and wages predictability that after
the 24th of March those people can be certain that
mortgage rates will fall. They can have no such
confidence, indeed the opposite must be their expectation
if Mr Peacock were to be made Prime Minister. Why? For
two simple factual reasons and not questions of opinion.
GoiLng both to fiscal rectitude and to wages, you cannot
possibly avoid an explosion of interest rates in this
country and a collapse of the economy if you have these
two things. Firstly a wages explosion, and I remind you
that we are now one week from the election and you still
have utter confusion on the part of the Opposition about
wages policy. The only certainty about it of course is
that you must have a wages explosion, because, if you are
going to have the position where you just throw it open
V. to negotiation by the employer and the employee then
wages must explode. Under their policy the pilots would
have got their 30 percent and then that would have blown
through the community and under a Peacock Government that
is exactly what would happen. So wages would explode.
The fiscal surplus would also be dissipated, the fact is
that you have this $ 7 billion unfunded bribe. It's there
aild they still go into this last week with no attempt to
answer-that-proposition. -Aqhere-is the money coming from?
Now there is one of two things that can happen in regard
to this person who is suffering some difficulty. They
either blow the surplus, therefore interest rates go
through the roof, or they cut services by about $ 7
billion if they are going to maintain the same budget
surplus. Well what sort of impact are you going to have
on this person and her family that you are talking about
with a cut of $ 7 billion in services? I mean, they will
be knocked to smithereens. So you have got those
outcomes. An increase in interest rates and as well, as
part of it, a cutting of services, because they couldn't
cut services to the tune of $ 7 billion there would be a
blowing of the surplus and that taken is a wages
explosion must mean a rise in interest rates. So, that's
the message.
JOURNALIST: about the raid on campaign offices in
Melbourne? PM: The raid?
JOURNALIST: Yes, selling bottles of wine and port
PM: Well, I am not aware of any raid on my offices. I
mean, this seems to me to be rather emotive language,
with respect. All that I've heard is that some police
people visited my office, which you in your colourful
language talk about a raid. I mean great reporting mate,
O wgarye aty our eproerptoirntg , i s buitt ? hardly accurate. I mean that's the
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well it's the language you used. Did you use the
language, a police raid on my office. I mean, perhaps my
hearing is going. I don't think so. I think that's what
you said. So your colourful language about a raid on my
office I reject. I understand that some police officers
went there. I know nothing about the background to it.
It seems to be that some of my people were going to sell
some port or wine. It may and some character in the
area who is a wine merchant has raised the question as to
whether that's appropriate for them to do it and whether
they've got the appropriate licence. I've simply said to
my people when they raised it with me today, and that's
my staff, I said simply tell my office that they are to
do nothing which is not within the law. Now those are
O rtahied . facts about your colourful question about the police
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: You've said in the past Mr Keating would be
a good deputy Prime Minister, have you given any more
thought to that in the last two weeks and Brian Howe?
PM: I've given no thought to it at all. I'm in the
fortunate position, Amanda, that I have a range of very
capable people and I've seen one report that Paul has
said he would not be interested in being Deputy Prime
Minister. discuss that. If that were his view and he
weren't a candidate and Mr Howe was a candidate, there's
no doubt that Mr Howe has got the qualifications to be an
excellent Deputy Prime Minister. There may be other
people that would throw their cap into the ring. But see
the great good fortune that I have, and it is one of the,
4 14
if I can borrow Mr Peacock's phrase, it's one of the
harshest realities of this last week that I have, one, a
totally united team of extremely capable people against
an increasingly disunited Opposition. Look at today's
Press. They're fighting one another on the question of
the multi-function polis. They're fighting one another
on wages policy. Just about any issue you want to look
at they are in total disagreement. So that is the
harshest reality of this last week a united Labor team
where Prime Minister Bob Hawke has the great good fortune
of a number of people who have the capacity to fill that
job. Against that a totally divided Opposition, where at
the beginning of this week you have Mr Howard with that
remarkable, remarkable interview. Let me share it with
you. He was being interviewed by Mr Chipp. He was asked
a very simple question do you believe, do you believe
Mr Peacock a very simple question do you believe Mr
Peacock, Mr Howard well, you know, not really going to
answer that, saying there' s only one inference you
0 cbaenl idervaew Mrf roPme actohcek . r eplSyo, I'Jmo hnq, u itaen d htahpapty iasb outth att hey oup rdoobnl'etm
I've got on my side, that is the problem of a luxury of
talent united together in their Party. Against that,
that chaos on the other side. Last question.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said this morning on radio
that you would hope to within three years
PM: I don't think that I either Paul or myself at any
stage have said, have nominated an earlier period than
that. But, just let me make the point about the
stabilisation of debt. Again, in this final week, the
Australian electorate has got to ask itself the question
to the extent that debt is an issue, got to ask
themselves the question, what is the range of policies
available from Hawke which is relevant to the question of
debt? What is the range of policies that Mr Peacock
O pqruoefsfteirosn wofh icthhe iss tqaubeisltiisoanteido n anofd wdehbitc. h iAs ndr eltehvea natn swtoe r thies
starkly clear. We have the policies. Let me nominate
them. We have a wages policy which gives you a
predictable outcome which will enable an increasingly
competitive Australian manufacturing and services
industry to increase its level of exports. That can
happen under our wages policy as has been happening.
54 percent increase in manufactured exports in the last
fbur years. 69 percent increase in the exports of
services._ That will continue under our wages policy.
Against that, wages explosion and the disaster of the
past under Mr Peacock. Secondly, fiscal rectitude. A
position where, under Hawke, for the first time in
history, surplus three years in a row, $ 17 billion, used
to pay off Commonwealth debt so that the Commonwealth is
a net international creditor to the tune of about S4
billion. Against that, fiscal irresponsibility on the
side of Mr Peacock and the conservatives which would blow
the budget surplus and therefore reduce the area of
domestic savings available to private industry. Third,
4 and very importantly, a plan for future savings in terms
of superannuation. Facts. When we came to office, $ 17
billion in funds, now $ 100 billion, and under our
policies which make superannuation an award prescription
of those funds growing to at least $ 600 billion by the
end of the decade. Against that, an Opposition policy
which is dedicated to stopping superannuation as an award
prescription and which would therefore destroy that
massive savings plan for the future. So, on the issue of
debt, we are the ones who have the policies in place
which can and are addressing that. If you look at the
figures for the December quarter of balance of payments
figures, look at the facts, there you have it that in the
December quarter in real terms exports of goods and
services up 3.7 percent. December on December, real
exports up by 11.4 percent and imports were down. And
you got the situation where you've got the current
account deficit down from $ 5.8 billion in the September
quarter to $ 4.4 billion in the December quarter a 24
percent improvement. In other words, our range of
policies are delivering, the alternative policies would
blow the debt through the roof.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: As Paul has said, and I think I've said it myself,
you can't necessarily go on indefinitely into the future
having the same sort of order of cuts that have occurred
in the past. I remind you, there've been four years in a
row and that has represented about, in cumulative terms,
not about, it's represented precisely 8.1 percent. Now,
you can't keep on doing that. What we can ensure however
is that, as we've demonstrated, in this election period,
that to the extent that we want to fund new promises,
that we have been prepared to continue to find savings to
do that. We can promise the Australian people on our
record. We don't, we haven't got any problem there.
We're the only Government that's done it, never before
been done. And we will continue to operate at a surplus
and at a significant surplus. The other mob have got no
chance of doing that.
ends