0
PRIMESTRAINITE
TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH GEOFFREY PALMER,
PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND, PARLIAMENT HOUSE
2 JULY 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
PM: Ladies and gentlemen, I had the opportunity last
night of having lenghty discussions with my friend and
colleague Geoffrey Palmer, the Prime Minister of New
Zealand. I had further opportunity of one on one with
him this morning for half an hour and then we've just had
a very useful period in the Cabinet with a number of my
Ministers. I think it appropriate Geoffrey as the
visitor that I hand it over to you and if you'd like to
make any comments, if you would.
PALMER: Thanks very much Bob. I appreciate that very
much. The discussions that we've had in Australia have
been very very useful and fruitful. A joint Ministerial
statement has been issued on CER. That statement
indicates that the momentum on CER has been kept up and
advanced. The bedding down of the micro-economic reforms
in Australia, those microeconomic reforms are very
important obviously. What the statement makes clear is
that the CER implications will be considered as those
reforms are carried out. The services protocol now has a
process attached to it with a date. CER has always
worked best when there's been a date set and work has to
be done by that date. The harmonisation of the laws
which this statement highlights is advancing very well
indeed and we are really now at a point where CER is
clearly an outstanding success. We have to think a
little about what the future will bring. The result of
CER has been that the relationship between Australia and
New Zealand has deepened, it has broadened. And the
Australian Prime Minister and myself have agreed that the
Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand should meet
together once a year to discuss the Australia-New Zealand
relationship. Those regular meetings will enable us to
see how the relationship is progressing and review where
it is going. In effect, we'll be working on annual
stocktakes of our relationship. This is a very
significant development in Australia-New Zealand
relations because New Zealand has no such arrangement
with any other country of this character. Obviously we
meet regularly at Commonwealth Heads of Government
meetings, at Forum meetings and things of that sort, but
to have a meeting once a year that concentrates at Prime
Ministerial level on the trans-Tasman relationship is a
very important development and I'm very grateful to the
Australian Government and the Australian Prime Minister
for agreeing to this proposal. I see it as a way of
lifting our game, both bilaterally, regionally, and
globally. That's really all I've got to say. I'll be
happy to answer questions.
PM: Could I just very briefly add to supplement what
Geoffrey's had to say and then, as I say, we'll be open
to questions. On the question of questions may I say if
we could have them firstly directed to Australia-New
Zealand matters and then if per chance the Australians
have any questions on any other matter we'll take those
at the end.
May I confirm what Geoffrey has said. It has been a very
useful meeting. This is not the usual comfortable words
of politicians who meet. We've discussed a range of
matters of considerable substance, not only bilaterally
but in regard to the region Geoffrey was good enough to
discuss with my colleagues in the Cabinet the
implications of the review, the very substantial review
that's just recently been completed by New Zealand in
regard to the South Pacific. That has some implications
for us and I think once again out of that we're able to
be sure that we go to the Forum meeting in Vila in a few
weeks' time with a common position on matters of
substance. We did also have some discussions about global matters
and found ourselves at one on our assessment of what was
occurring there. In the bilateral matter, the communique
covers those matters. I'd just like to make this point,
that it is the case that the progress under CER has been
significantly in advance of the anticipations at the
beginning of that process, vide that we're now into the
free movement of goods across the Tasman some five years
earlier than was anticipated. We have realistically
faced up to the question of services.
New Zealand liked the idea of a data That makes
sense and we understand that. We've got to make it
clear, as Geoffrey has alluded to, that we are in the
process right now of looking at some of the important
areas of services, some of the most important,
particularly in telecommunications and banking. Banking
comes into another category of concern. But in regard to
what we're doing in the area of telecommunications and
aviation, we are, in those two areas in particular,
looking at what the changes are going to be in Australia.
New Zealand understands that because of that fact we have
to have the reservations which in a sense are reflected
in the statement about those concerns. But having said
that, we've given the undertaking in that what we do in
those areas we will be taking into account the concerns
and interest of New Zealand. We will be advancing
further work in the area of the potential for
harmonisation of commercial laws and practice.
So it's been a constructive meeting and I want to thank
you Geoffrey for the way in which while advancing the
interests of cross-Tasman relationships from New
Zealand's point of view I think also you've been
understanding of the particular concerns and needs that
we have and our present processes of considering the
micre-economic reform that we're undertaking in
Australia. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, New Zealand Prime Minister,
is the question of a monetary union beyond the power of
PALMER: Any monetary union would be a very long way down
the track. We haven't had any discussions about that.
But who can know what in twenty or thirty years the
situation trans-Tasman will be.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in terms of banking and
investment does your bilateral relationship with Japan
make as far as most favoured nation treaty is
concerned? PM: Well in banking, let me go to banking and deal with
the implications of that, and investment. As Geoffrey
and the New Zealanders understand, the Nara Treaty we
have with Japan in the area of investment means that we
can't get into an agreement with New Zealand which would
give them benefits that we've not extended to Japan. But
I think the important and New Zealand understand that
I think the important thing to understand though in the
investment area is this, that if you look at the
statistics and I think they were reflected in the
communique, but they are very telling. From 1983 until
the present time, cross-Tasman investment has increased
from $ 1.5 billion to just over $ 10 billion which is about
a 680% increase. Now, that is massive, and fortunately
it's very evenly balanced. There's nothing in the
balance of investment one way or the other.
Substantially, that means as far as New Zealand and
Australia are concerned, that they have not met with
difficulties. So while there may be some theoretical
concern about the limitations imposed by the Nara
agreement, in practical terms we've seen this enormous
increase in investment. That I think is going to
continue. In regard to banking there's a somewhat
different situation there which we've frankly talked
about with one another. We made a decision in this
country about the number of banks, foreign banks that
we'd have in here. While New Zealand has a situation
where they have a right to say no to any bank coming
in, in practical terms virtually any foreign bank that
wants to go in there can go in. If you were to have
complete freedom in banking services between Australia
and New Zealand, that could mean that our position of
having a limit would be subverted. We've frankly
discussed this and I think New Zealand understands that.
JOURNALIST: Mr Palmer, the Opposition here is
considering a consumption tax and Mr Reith, the Shadow
Treasurer, has just been to your country to have a look
at how it works. In retrospect, would you recommend that
a country have a consumption tax in light of your
experience? PALMER: I can say that the GST tax that we introduced
was a great success from the point of view of its
administration. It's easy to run, simple to administer,
very hard to escape from and certainly has helped our tax
mix. But whether any other country should adopt it is
not a concern for us.
JOURNALIST: Mr Palmer, will you pushing for a New
Zealand special preference if Australia either
decides to competitor in communications market or
allows investment in one or our existing carriers?
PALMER: We won't be asking for special New Zealand
preference in that connection. We understand that there
are important micro-economic changes going on. Those
policies have yet to be considered by the Australian
Government. All we are asking, and all this communique
says is that the CER aspects of these things will be
concerted as those policies are developed.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, there are several areas where
pushing for more open services investment, trans-
Tasman shipping. One gets the impression that Australia
is somewhat prone to slow things down, at least not going
at the speed of New Zealand What's your
PM: I can understand in a sense that view being there
because, let's be quite open and frank about CER as
Geoffrey has been in the Cabinet this morning. CER is in
a sense more important to New Zealand than it is to
Australia for no other reason than size. I mean, we're
seventeen million, you're four. The opportunities that
are opened up for New Zealand to have access to that
vastly enlarged market, by definition, I mean it's no
reflection-on New Zealanders or Australians, it's simply
an arithmetical fact that it is more significant for New
Zealand. It's therefore talked about more in New Zealand
as is a matter of evidence than it is here. But the next
point to make is this, and it's at least as important,
that at the political level here in Australia we take it,
I think, as seriously as in New Zealand. We understand
the importance of it for us but we certainly also
understand the importance of it for New Zealand. It is
the case that it was because of our cooperation with New
Zealand that we ' ye got this vast acceleration in freeing
up trade and goods. That couldn't have happened unless
we'd agreed to it. We agreed to it because we thought it
was in the interests of Australia and of New Zealand. So
if you had to stand still now in 1990 and look at the
progress of CER as against the anticipations and
expectations of 1983, by any judgement it's proceeded
infinitely faster than was expected. That could not have
happened without the cooperation of Australia. Now,
having said that, we now reach the point of the important
area of services, very important for New Zealand and for
US. It is the fact that New Zealand has made a set of
decisions in regard to its services sector before, in a
sense, we have made our sets of decisions. And that's
particularly true in regard to telecommunications. New
Zealand understands that it's not open for us to make a
firm decision about the relationship and opportunities
for New Zealand in Australia, and Australia in New
Zealand in that area, until we have completed our
consideration. That doesn't reflect any desire on our
part to slow processes down. It is just the political
reality in that area.
PALMER: There's an additional point. A lot of the
micro-economic reforms in Australia involve the States.
Now New Zealand doesn't have this problem. Not that it
might not be a problem, but we do not have
PM: Don't kid yourself. Let me interrupt. I tell my
New Zealand friends over there that they will never fully
understand the beauty of politics in New Zealand. No
States, no Upper House, no Constitution. I mean when
you're elected, you're elected.
PALMER: And when you want to do micro-economic reform
you can do it. And the problem is that obviously we
understand because of those obstacles that the timetable
could not be necessarily the same in Australia as it was
in New Zealand. And a number of these things require to
be worked through. They require further discussions,
they require a lot of complementary legislation even
perhaps in some cases with the States. So we're not
impatient, we're not expressing some feeling that there
is any dragging of the chain going on here, not at all.
It's just that the profile of the environment in which
you make decisions here is inordinately complicated.
JOURNALIST: Mr Palmer, how concerned are you about the
predatory behaviour of the emerging international megacarrier
airlines, how quickly do you think that Australia
and New Zealand need to get a joint aviation market to
help ensure the viability of national operations both
here and in New Zealand?
PALMER: We're in favour of a joint aviation market.
We've got studies that are going on now which will lead
to some further consideration in Australia about what
their policies will be. That work's well advanced. We
are confident that it'll come out in such a way that we
will be happy with it.
PM: Can I just add in that area, there is already, as
has been indicated, there is work going on, joint work
between our people and the New Zealanders about the
implications of a trans-Tasman aviation market. I'm not
reluctant to say that that's something that's got to be
considered. It has some obvious implications. But not
only for that market, but then for the relationship
between that market and the rest of the world. Those
things are being looked at and I think it's inevitable
that at some point that market is going to emerge. I
think the question is how long, when, when that sort of
thing happens. I think we're both comfortable with the
rate at which that's being looked at.
PALMER: I was just going to add in relation to that
question that New Zealand's experience about having an
Australian airline in New Zealand has been very good in
the sense that the competition between Air New Zealand
and Ansett on our domestic routes has improved things for
the New Zealand consumer enormously.
JOURNALIST: Could I ask either or both or you whether
you discussed the question of the Johnston Atoll and
whether there's any difference between
PM: Yes you can ask it, yes of course. The answer is
yes we did allude to it and I think the obviously
Geoffrey will answer it himself. But what was conveyed
is that they will want to be looking at that in
considerable detail and get advice on it, as indeed will
we. I would hope that out of that investigation that's
done on both sides, that we'll be able to have a common
position when we go to the Forum.
PALMER: There's some United States' officials, as I
understand it, coming to New Zealand. I am going to be
meeting with them to get a briefing on precisely what is
happening and how. The Government of New Zealand will
determine its position when we've had that briefing.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you've indicated in the statement
you'll be designating two new carriers in the area
PM: I said I'll be what?
JOURNALIST: Designating two new carriers in the area of
trans-Tasman air freight. Have you decided going to
be? PM: Yes, there is a decision.
JOURNALIST: What is that decision?
PM: Not to be announced here. I've got a Minister who
will make an announcement.
JOURNALIST: How soon?
PM: Quite soon.
JOURNALIST: Mr Palmer, on Bougainville, you've recently
currently offered three of your warships. Were you able
to tell Mr Hawke whether the Bougainville Revolutionary
Army or the PNG Government have accepted your offer, and
what communications you have had with them?
PALMER: New Zealand has kept the Australian Government
fully briefed on these developments, not only after they
happened but before they happened. What we are aiming to
do is simply offer a neutral venue for talks, a secure
venue so that those talks can take place. Our
information is that the BRA is likely to accept that
offer. But it's not easy for us to delve into their
decision-making process.
PM: Could I just make the point on that that we welcome
the initiative of New Zealand. It is obviously easier for
New Zealand to do that than it would have been for
Australia, for obvious reasons, as far as the BRA is
concerned. There is no suggestion whatsoever that we are
other than pleased with and welcoming of the facilities
that New Zealand has agreed to provide if the two parties
agree to use them.
JOURNALIST: have discussions with the BRA, or
through intermediaries or
PALMER: We have had various means by which their views
have been transmitted to us.
JOURNALIST: Mr Palmer, can I just clarify with you, Mr
Beazley, I think, has flagged the possibility of a merger
between Qantas and Air New Zealand. Do you have any inprinciple
objection to that option being on the table?
PALMER: Of course Qantas has a significant shareholding
in Air New Zealand now. And the way in which the future
companies organise themselves no doubt will have to be
considered in due course as the new Australian policy is
developed and after it has been announced. But at the
moment the New Zealand Government does not have a
position on that question.
JOURNALIST: Do you have a time limit where becomes
more important for Air New Zealand and New Zealand's
interests to be such that you would start looking around
for other alliances if Australia doesn't act in this
area? PALMER: We're not endeavouring to bring pressure on
Australia in that way. We are quite content with the
processes that have been put in train here.
JOURNALIST: Mr Palmer, if there is a merger between
Qantas and Air New Zealand, it's going to make it fairly
difficult for Air New Zealand to then get domestic rights
within Australia.
PALMER: Well that's really not a question that I've
considered. I would need to study that with my Minister
of Civil Aviation and work out exactly what is proposed.
It's not a proposal that I've even heard of.
JOURNALIST: Mr Willis, in an interview on television
yesterday, left open his view on whether Senator
Richardson was still trying to secure his downfall from
the Ministry for his own political purposes. Do you see
that going on behind the scenes in
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Did you ever offer Mr Willis an overseas
posting of any sort?
PM: Any discussions that I have had with any of my
Ministers are confidential.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: and now, if you are going to write that up Hawke
refuses to deny, OK, that's I have always, I think
you know Milton, taken the view that conversations with
my JOURNALIST: I understand that
PM: I've got to take, I've got to take the risk that
that's the way it will be run, that Hawke refuses to
deny. But I am not going to break the rule that I've
followed for seven years of not, you know, going into the
details of private conversations I have with any, any
Minister. JOURNALIST: do you expect Mr Willis to stay in the
position he's in for the rest of the term?
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: While you say you're not aware that Senator
Richardson is trying to get rid of Mr Willis, yet Mr
Willis has suggested that
PM: No, no, no. I watched that program. I didn't know
Mr Willis was going on it, but as I tend to watch the
program, I didn't get the impression that Mr Willis said
that that was still going on.
JOURNALIST: had gone on
PM: Well, that's not the question you put to me. I
mean, what I'm, what I'm saying is he gave an answer
which, as I recall, I say it subject to correction, was
that he would not deny that that had happened. My
equally clear recollection was that he did not say that
that was still going on.
JOURNALIST: Does it concern you that did happen though?
PM: Well, you had a situation at the, after the last
election where it was thought in some quarters that
Victoria was over-represented. Now, there was that
thought in some quarters. Let me make it clear that I
took the view that as far as Ralph Willis was concerned,
he deserved to stay in the Ministry and I took steps to
ensure that that happened.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, what are you going to do about
these on-going tensions which seem to be bubbling to the
surface between
PM: What I'm going to do is to make sure that this
Government goes about the business of Government and that
is to make relevant decisions and that's what we're
about. And I make this suggestion to you that we're now
at the beginning of this financial year ' 90/' 91 and that
in the first half of this financial year, or which is the
second half of calendar ' 90, you will see a range of very
significant decisions taken by this Government in regard
to the conduct of macro and micro economic policy which
will be extremely important for the future welfare of
this country. That's what I'm going to do I'll be
sitting in the Cabinet, chairing the meetings of the ERC,
of the Structural Adjustment Committee, of the subcommittee
of SAC in regard to sustainable development, as
well as chairing the Cabinet. I will be chairing all
those meetings and ensuring that the business of
Government is undertaken. One day, one day you will get
your balances right. I mean, it's all very interesting,
and this is not said in criticism, I mean, if I were
sitting where you were, I would write up the stories
about what Senator Richardson has said or what Mr Willis
has said. That's, that's your duty, but I'm simply
saying in a friendly fashion, I mean, get your balances
right. I mean, it's as though the Government is
consumed, if you were to read your stories, by continual
back-biting and some Minister having a go at another.
Yes, some of that has happened. I mean, wouldn't I be an
idiot to deny it. But the important thing is that the
processes of Government are going on and the proof of
that particular pudding will be in the eating. You will
see as this year goes on, a range of decision making and
important decision making which will be as substantial or
more substantial than anything that has occurred in the
period of this Government. That's my responsibility, to
ensure that those things happen and they will.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, will you be telling your Ministers
to get their balances right?
PM: Well, I would say that essentially they have. I
mean, if you want to use the word balance between hard
constructive work that's being done by those Ministers
and the occasional off-beat comment which I would have
preferred they hadn't made, Michelle, I mean, I'm not
going to be stupid and say I'm happy that all these
things have been said, but you use the word balance
JOURNALIST: you use the word..
PM: I know, and you picked it up in regard to individual
Ministers and I'm saying if you would almost believe,
from the way you write, that all that's being done by
these Ministers is to spend their time sniping. Whereas
the, the fact is in regard. to all of them, they are
working extremely hard and playing their part in this
process that I've referred to. 1990 will be seen as a
year of most significant decision making and that could
not have happened unless all Ministers were playing their
part. JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I'll come back to..
JOURNALIST: I'm sorry, I was going to say in this
situation, you'd have to agree that it's a fairly unruly
way to go about the process. For a Minister to be
talking on one hand about how the Government does need to
show more control Cabinet in what they say, and
yet, on the very same breath pointing to people who he's
disagreed with?
PM: Well, he was asked a question. I mean, I would
think if you look at the Minister in question, Mr Willis,
over a period of seven years he is not a Minister who
would be characterised as a talker to the Press. Indeed,
if I recollect correctly, what the Press has complained
about, in a sense, or has analysed Mr Willis for, is some
reluctance to push his own interests, talk about what
he's doing and so on. I think it comes as a little bit
strange in regard to Mr Willis if he has said something
now that he really is someone who, you know, is given to,
to loose statements or unwise statements and I would find
it hard to make that judgement. Now obviously, having
said that and it goes, I think, back to Michelle as, as I
think the supplementary question she was asking. I mean,
I've made the point in the period since the election that
I would have been happier, obviously, if some of these
statements hadn't been made. They haven't been helpful,
but if I had been of the view that what was happening was
that the processes, the important processes of Government
were being neglected, I would be very much more unhappy.
I take the view that they now find themselves in a fourth
term of Government, I'm pleased about that some of them
may be surprised, they're all pleased and there may have
been some, can I put it down this way, some letting down
of the guard. Now I believe that that guard will go up,
I expect it to, but importantly, I repeat, the hard
unremitting work of Government has been going on and will
go on.
JOURNALIST: Dr Charles' job is on the line?
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: About Dr Charles.
PM: Dr Charles, yes.
JOURNALIST: It is the second time in, I think, more than
a week that a leading public servant has spoken out
against Government's..
PM: I have read with considerable interest the remarks
attributed to Dr Charles. When I read them I contacted
the Secretary of my Department, Mr Codd, who was in
Melbourne and indicated my concern at the remarks, if
they were an accurate report of Dr Charles. I have
requested Mr Codd to follow this matter up and as a
result of that discussion with Mr Codd, I understand that
Mr Codd will be seeing Dr Charles this afternoon to
ascertain if the remarks attributed to him in The
Financial Review are correctly attributed and Mr Codd
will be reporting to me. That's what I've done and I'm
awaiting the report to me from Mr Codd.
JOURNALIST: Dr Charles' job on the line?
PM: I will be awaiting the report from Mr Codd. The
f act that I have done this, indicates the degree of my
concern. Let me make this point. It is not simply, if
if it is accurate, it's not simply the remarks as such,
the criticism as such. But if one were to allow that to
go unnoticed, unremarked and undealt with, then you
obviously would have an untenable situation as far as
Government is concerned, not just this Government, but
it's been true of all governments that it is not the
entitlement of public servants to be indulging in the
criticism of Government. They have the right and indeed,
in my judgement, the responsibility to push to their
Ministers a view, an analysis of where they think
Government policy may be wrong, alternatives. That
should be done internally, but it is a canon of
Government which has been followed by governments of both
persuasions that that expectation you have of public
servants that they will do that within their job and
within the Public Service does not extend to public
crticism. So I'll receive the report and then I'm not
hypothecating what I will do. I don't know what's going
to be in the report to me.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, don't Dr Charles' comments and
comments of Mr Phillips last week indicate quite serious
reservations amongst those who advise the Government
about the monetary policy and the direction of
economic
PM: Well, Geoff, I'm not going to, to the question of
what is attributed to Dr Charles because I have got to
have it established that, that the remarks are correctly
attributed. But in this area obviously there is a
situation where people, economists, will have different
views. It has never been the case in the field of
economics at this period, or at any other, that you have
a unanimity of view amongst economists. It has never
been true and it's not true in Australia at this time
that you have unamimity of view amongst economists.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, there was a suggestion that
the Pyramid Building Society collapse was raised at the
Premiers' Conference last week. Did Mr Cain seek any
help from the Federal Government?
PM: There was some I think he had some discussion
with Mr Keating and he did have some discussion with me.
You will note the statement that has been released by the
Reserve Bank today which I welcome. That's the Reserve
Bank is the appropriate arm of, of the official
structure, the federal official structure, to make a
comment on this and I'm pleased, as I'm sure Mr Cain and
people in Victoria will be, with the statement that has
been made by the Reserve Bank. I have nothing to add to
it. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you talked about substantial
progress in both micro and macro policy making in the
next little while. I was just wondering does that signal
a major change in the weightings of economic, macro
economic policy?
PM: No. No.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: No. I announced during the election campaign what
the program of the Government would be, the sort of time
table in the areas in which we've be acting made that
clear then. Since our re-election we've moved to give
effect to that commitment I made during the election.
JOURNALIST: You're absolutely happy with the weighting
between monetary and fiscal policy at the moment. You
see no need re adjustment there?
PM: Yes I am happy. I think we've, Michelle, in this
area there will, as I said, there will always be room for
argument between economists as to getting the absolutely
perfect relationship between the major three arms of
policies, monetary and fiscal and, and wages. In the
Australian political scene where we have the great
advantage of course, is that we have an affective wages
policy. Which means that as between the alternatives of
Labor and the Conservatives, there does not have to be
the same weight upon the other two arms of policy as
13
there would have to be under the Conservatives not having
a wages policy, there would have to be more weight upon
monetary policy and fiscal policy. Now, we will continue
to have the three arms of policy tight. We are now as a
Government about to go into the worst period of the year,
as I've told you before, the ERC process will start in
earnest this week really next week and that will be
there to ensure that on the fiscal side, policy remains
tight. And I think yes, that we've got it right. I
mean, you don't want me to bore you with the statistics
again. I can do it very easily, they are well in my
mind. But if you look at the area of fiscal policy,
Michelle, been very tight for the last three to four
years and I can assure that the Budget we bring down will
continue a period a policy of fiscal rectitude.
Wages policy, you know, that's set and in that sense
monetary policy is the, is a swinger of what you are
doing in the other areas. Now there is always some room
for some argument as to whether the balance is absolutely
right. But it is my view and the view of Paul and the
Government that we have it right.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke isn't the present balance taking a
very heavy toll in the competitiveness of Australian
exports? PM: Well, one of the fascinating things about the
discussion, Geoffrey, is this that there is some
assumption that in regard to some of the criticisms that
have been made, that under the position, say, of Mr
Phillips that you would have easier monetary policy. Not
true. I mean, what has been argued by many and it seems
by Mr Phillips, and I'm not getting into a criticism of
any individuals, but I'm simply making the point, don't
let there be the easy assumption that what's being argued
is some easier position for business in terms of easier
monetary policy. If you were giving a greater weight to
the fight against inflation, as is argued by some, there
would be higher interest rates and higher interest rates
would certainly not be consistent with what you are
talking about a more competitive position for
Australian industry. Quite the contrary.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, a special category for the Chinese
in Australia before June 20 last year. Does that cover
all Chinese Government employees in Australia, including
those at the Chinese Embassy and Consulates and if so
could this create problems of its own?
PM: No. It doesn't create problems of its own. In the
case of these people who are making those applications
for asylum, they will be dealt with according to the
normal way in such applications are made. It doesn't
create any difficulties at all. OK?
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the St George Building
Society I understand has written to you, I don't know
whether you have received the letter or not
14
PM: I haven't received any letter from them yet.
JOURNALIST: Expressed outrage at Mr Willis' comments
yesterday about relative safety of investing funds in
building societies. How do you respond to that sort of
suggestion that building societies are upset by them. Do
you endorse Mr Willis' comments?
PM: I'm not, I'm not making any comment upon that
other that to say this. Mr Willis didn't intend to upset
building societies or make any attack upon them. He was
and I believe nothing could have been further from his
mind I think he was simply referring to the fact of the
difference in the relationship between the banks and the
Reserve Bank the Reserve Bank behind the banks in the
absence of that situation via a vis the building society.
Now that's, that's not a question of value judgements.
That's simply a fact and I think he was referring to
that. Mr Willis would in no way be seeking to attack or
cast a reflection upon building societies. That was the
essential fact to which he was referring. Thanks.
ends