 |

|
Political Priorities, FTA, Tax Policy, Education, Health
Mark Latham - Federal Labor Leader
|
Press Conference
Transcript - Parliament House, Canberra - 5 July 2004
E & OE
LATHAM: Thanks very much for coming along. I've called this press conference to clear
the air. Sometime in the next couple of months we are going to have an election
campaign and I believe it should be about the positive things we should be doing
for Australia's future rather than the old politics of fear and smear. I believe
that many great things need to be done for our country especially in opening up
new opportunities in the education system and restoring the fairness of Medicare.
I will run a very positive and constructive election campaign. I want to be out
there talking directly to the Australian people about the things that matter,
about the policy solutions that can make the good difference for Australia's future.
I think one of the good things about our democracy is that that is what the Australian
people want me to do, and all the party political leaders to be out there talking
about the positives, the good things we can do for the future. So I will be talking
about the future but I've also got to face up to the fact that in recent weeks
the focus has been on my past. I've been subjected to more rumours and smears
than you can poke a stick at. Normally in politics that's a sign that you are
a threat to someone - someone's got the power and you might possibly be about
to take it off them. I've got nothing to hide about my past. I'm here to answer
your questions as best I can. But can I also say that in running to be Australia's
Prime Minister I expect the Australian people to judge me on my work and performance
as Opposition Leader, primarily. When I was right here on the 2nd of December,
I made two promises to the Australian people - one was no more crudity and I've
kept that. I believe I've communicated appropriately and as effectively as I can
over the last seven months. And the second promise, the most important promise
I made was to be positive, to try and set the agenda, put out good constructive
ideas that would benefit the Australian people. I heard over the weekend Mr Howard
saying that I was somehow policy deficient. He wasn't saying that when he adopted
our policy on parliamentary superannuation, and ATSIC, and the pneumococcal vaccine
and the baby care payment and childhood obesity and the emphasis we have placed
on child care places and literacy for our infant children. They are all issues
where the Government has been forced to respond to Labor's positive policy agenda.
And, as best I can, I've tried not to be a whinger. I could get out there on the
doors every morning - nah, nah, complaining about the Howard Government, complaining
about everything under the sun. It's not my style. By nature I'm not a whinger.
I'm not a negative person. I said that on the 2nd of December. I try to be positive
and that's how I've tried to do this job to the best of my ability over the last
seven months.
Let's deal with these rumours; some of them have been around a long, long time.
I've never complained about it in the past. At one level, I've learned to live
with it. I had a senior journalist in the press gallery ring me after the 1998
election and say the real reason you are not running for the front bench, the
real reason you are going to the back bench, is because you're on sexual harassment
charges. That's what he said to me and that was the rumour that was circulating
at the time and the rumour that's been repeated to me in recent times by another
journalist. It's not true. It wasn't true then, not true now and never true at
any stage. The other rumour that is around, it's in the papers today, it was in
the papers yesterday, something about a video at a buck's night. Some people say
the second marriage; I didn't have a buck's night the second time around. I had
one the first time around; that was enough, quite frankly. It was organised by
other people. I turned up and it was a tame enough affair. Nothing happened that
would cause me any embarrassment today, looking back on it 13 years later, even
if there was a video to look at, which I very much doubt. I mean, there's nothing
there that would cause me embarrassment or anything I did wrong by my own standards
or those of the Australian people.
It seems to me these rumours come from three sources - it's no surprise that
one is the first wife; she was out in the media in December and she's been backgrounding
journalists ever since. Well, my standard is simply this: I refuse to relive a
marriage break up publicly. It was hard enough the first time. I'm not going to
go through it a second time in the public arena and I don't believe the Australian
people see it as my public duty to do that. She has remarried with children and
so have I. At the time it was hard; it was messy. I would've made mistakes. I
mean, there were things that you just wouldn't believe. It's the toughest part
of your life. If any one has had a perfect marriage break up, let me know about
it - I don't think anyone ever has. The only request I make and it's a request
I made in December - it might not have been noted at the time was that as these
rumours are circulated from my first wife, and some people in the media repeat
them; would you lay off my family? Things have been put to me about my sisters,
my mother, my father that are not true and they don't deserve it. Say whatever
you like about me but leave them out of it please.
The second set of rumours comes from an interesting group of former councillors
at Liverpool City Council. The background to this is that when I first ran for
Liverpool Council in 1987, believe it or not, there hadn't been a Labor majority
on that council for 25 years. The standing joke in Liverpool was that we had more
ex-Labor councillors in the council chamber than official Labor councillors. The
council for 25 years, was controlled by a group of ex-Labor councillors, sometimes
known as Labor rats, independents and Liberals and they'd run the council for
a quarter of a century. I ran to be the Labor mayor in 1991 and get control of
the council back for the Labor Party and do the best I could to be a good mayor
and achieve things that I thought were important in the place where I grew up:
the City of Liverpool. I did that; I beat them in 1991. The whole list of people
you've got on this letter here today were defeated in 1991 at that council election.
They're fighting old battles and at one level I'm not surprised - I mean, it was
a divisive period; I rubbed their noses into it. I suppose that was a mistake
at the time. I could've run a more unified, harmonious council, but in the politics
- the hotbed municipal politics of the day - it wasn't like that. And one thing
I've learned from that period - and probably from in the Parliament here being,
at times, too divisive a figure - is to get a better capacity for bringing people
together.
Over the last seven months a small but I hope significant achievement is that
the Labor Caucus under my leadership is more united and hopefully more harmonious
than it was in the past, certainly through the course of 2003. But these people
who have circulated this letter haven't been in the Labor Party for a long, long
while.
For four of them to list themselves as Labor is just untrue. Casey Conway was
last in the Labor Party in 1989 when ran against us in the State by-election as
an independent. Joe Durant was last in the Labor Party 25 years ago. He was a
Labor mayor of Liverpool in around 1972 and then got out of the Labor Party. I
defeated him at the council election in East Ward in 1987. Noel Short, listed
here as Labor, I defeated him the 1987 pre-selection and then he ran as an independent,
beat him again in the East Ward ballot, he then joined the Liberal Party. He was
the Liberal candidate for the seat of Hughes in 1993. He is listed here as Labor.
He was the Liberal candidate for the seat of Hughes in 1993. The joke was he needed
to wait one more time and run in '96, the election where Dana Vale beat Robert
Tickner in the seat of Hughes.
The other people listed here, Frank Heyhoe, lost many pre-selection ballots in
the 80s and left the Labor Party. Colin Harrington, listed here as independent,
was actually elected to the council as a Labor alderman but then joined the independents
to become mayor and I beat him to myself become mayor in 1991. So I beat all of
these people at the 1991 council election campaign. They're still fighting the
same old battle and the only one who has owned up in an honest way is Gary Lucas
who lists himself as Liberal. He has always been Liberal and he was the Liberal
candidate for Liverpool Council in 1991. So that's the truth of these people and
what they've had to say about the council finances.
I have set out in the Parliament my response. No-one has disputed the key figures
- not even Piers Ackerman, who just re-runs the Government's research in this
area - the debt servicing ratio went down, the working funds went up and I produced
surplus budgets, most notably in 1994, and these things have been confirmed by
John Walker, who belongs to the other side of politics, but was our general manager
and has confirmed them as recently as yesterday.
The third area for these rumours appears to be the Government's dirt machine.
I've been used to Tony Abbott's staff coming out digging dirt in Liverpool for
the last eight years, haven't said much about it, but I still get regular reports
from people who say that Abbott's people are out there doing their worst. There
is a unit headed by Ian Hanke. We had a Government Minister last week wandering
around the Press Gallery saying there is a campaign worker with a broken collarbone;
doesn't exist. Peter Costello telling journalists to go investigate the Liverpool
Council. You all know the rumours and trash that gets walked around the Press
Gallery on a regular basis.
I simply urge the Prime Minister to disband the dirt units. Disband the dirt
units and actually turn these publicly funded staff to a positive purpose - perhaps
running the country a better way and doing some good things for the Australian
people. So if this is about a character test, I'm expecting the Australian people,
I hope the Australian people will judge me for who I am but most particularly
the work that I've undertaken as Opposition Leader. I've worked hard through my
life, through school, through university, my time in public life. There is no
secret or trick about that, you work hard, you do your best. You make mistakes
along the way; you try and learn from them as best you can. I hope I've got the
policies and ideas that can win the confidence of the Australian people and do
a good job as their Prime Minister.
The one thing I will never apologise for; I'm not a single dimension person.
I saw Glenn Milne today writing a piece which basically said you can't simultaneously
have a few beers, write a few books, rip into Tony Abbott in the Parliament, plus
advocate the importance of reading books to our infant children. Well, I say you
can. I say you can; that's a real life where you believe in many things and you
do many things. I mean, that's being a real person who leads a real life. It is
not being complicated or erratic. If anyone is a single dimension person, I say
try and broaden out; do many more things in your life than just one. And that's
how I've tried to run my public life as best I can. That's who I am. I really
can't add more than that other than saying I believe I've got the character and
policies to be a good Prime Minister of this country. I'll be advocating as best
I can, doing the best I can for the Australian people in a positive way in the
weeks and months leading up to the Federal election and it would be a vast privilege
and honour to serve as their Prime Minister in the future.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, in this address you have choked a couple of times, where you talk
about your family and that sort of stuff. Has this stuff hurt you, personally?
LATHAM: I'm pretty tough and have been through politics a fair while. I mentioned that
hotbed environment in Liverpool where they threw everything at me and over the
last seven months I've been getting around the country - you know, you take the
praise, and that's nice, but there's also a fair bit of scrutiny and coverage.
People writing six books, lots of media interest in me. I don't complain about
any of that. I welcome the scrutiny. I am running to be the Prime Minister of
the country, the scrutiny is deserved but on family, yes, it hurts. They're not
public figures.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, you raised the sexual harassment claims that have been circulated
in the past, including by members of your own party. Is it completely baseless?
You've raised it but was there ever a claim, did anyone ever raise any questions
about that with you or any complaints with you personally. You said there was
never a sexual harassment charge but was there any basis to it whatsoever?
LATHAM: Not in my opinion. There was no basis to it. There's a big difference between
rumour and fact and this has been for six years now a rumour and nothing more
than that.
JOURNALIST: Did anyone ever complain to your office or complain to Kim Beazley's office
about your behaviour towards women?
LATHAM: I can't answer for other people; I received no complaint myself from any individual.
I know there was nothing to complain about because there was no incident. Okay.
What you've got is a rumour. This rumour has circulated for six years. I wouldn't
know the name of the person, the nature of the incident, any of that detail. I
know it didn't happen and no-one has ever been able to put to me anything other
than the nature of the rumour. So how can I do all of that - it is like trying
to grab hold of a puff of smoke; it doesn't exist. All I've got is a rumour that
I know is not true. It was put to me in 1998, in that fashion, and it has circulated
ever since. It was put to me just last Thursday by a journalist who is researching
a so-called profile piece. It's not true. No name, no incident, no detail, no
nothing. All I've got, and all I've ever heard about for six years, is a rumour
and there is a world of difference between a rumour and fact.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, do you think you've had a fair go from the media?
LATHAM: Yes, I do. I started this job and got a lot of encouragement and positive coverage
and that was great. Of course, over time, you expect that that levels out and
we are now at the period where hopefully the coverage will be fifty-fifty and
we get on with the election campaign. I've got no complaints about the media.
I've got complaints about the nature of these rumours and where they come from
and I'm making my response to them here today.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, you spoke of the Howard Government's dirt unit. The Hawke and Keating
governments had the animals, will you give a commitment right here and now that
if you are elected and become Prime Minister, a Latham Labor Government will have
nothing of that kind under any guise whatsoever - that is, a monitoring unit,
or individuals within the Government designed to monitor the activity of position
or opponents, political opponents?
LATHAM: My understanding is that Mr Hanke and his unit does much more than monitoring.
I urge the Prime Minister to disband that unit and of course we have got no intention
of re-establishing it.
JOURNALIST: No intention of having anything of that kind?
LATHAM: We've got nothing planned to bring back Animals, certainly not.
JOURNALIST: They are not conclusive words; they are weasel words.
LATHAM: Well, no - the answer to your question is no. I've had no discussions with anyone
about any intention of ours, and I wouldn't want to do it anyway, to being back
such a unit in Government.
JOURNALIST: Nothing like the Animals?
LATHAM: No.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, have you ever hit another person other than in self-defence?
LATHAM: On the football field there has been the odd incident. But what happens on the
field stays on the field but like all footy players you would say that was in
self-defence as well in the context of the footy field.
JOURNALIST: So no [inaudible] attacks off the footy field?
LATHAM: No, I haven't - honestly. And what has happened is out there in the public arena,
whatever incidents people want to point to. I've given my account and I know it
to be the truth.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, do you think all of this has hurt you politically?
LATHAM: I don't know; that's for the Australian people, and yourself included, to make
your own judgment. I'm just here to advocate what I believe to be the truth and
advocate through the election campaign the policies that I believe in for the
country.
JOURNALIST: Why have you decided to address this now? Why now rather than when the rumours
and innuendo, and reports, first emerged? Why now, after these events?
LATHAM: Jim, some of these rumours have been around for six years. At one level, I had
learned to live with them but given the nature of them at the current time, and
the intensity of it. I've heard things come back to me that have been whispered
around the Press Gallery and this building that just sort of make you feel sick.
So, given the intensity of it, and the focus on it I'm not scared of facing up
to these things - I thought the time was right to confront them head on. Six years
is enough in my book - six years is enough given the intensity and some of the
garbage I've heard last week. It's enough.
JOURNALIST: But Mr Latham why do you think there has been that intensity going back so far
because presumably the Liberals, if they've been digging out dirt more recently,
were not particularly interested in you at that stage. How do you account for
this? I don't remember any former leader on either side of politics having to
do what you're doing today, even Bob Hawke with his colourful past.
LATHAM: You will have to ask them. Maybe it's got something to do with election timing.
You would have to ask the Government minister who reckons I've broken someone's
collarbone. You'd have to ask the people who come and talk to you. Ask them. Why
not ask them?
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, there were some claims raised in the Sunday newspapers by so-called
friends of your wife that you were unfaithful in your marriage. Do you think that
is a relevant issue? Do you think voters need to know that? And do you think that
you need to respond to that?
LATHAM: The claim was made from Gabrielle Gwyther herself in March; don't know about
friends, so-called friends. I mean, the claim was there in the Age newspaper in
March, and that's one of the points I make - none of these things are new. They've
been out in the public arena for a long, long while.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, if they're not new, what evidence do you have that they are being
raised by a dirt unit within the Government?
LATHAM: You've got reportage in your paper of a Government Minister saying last week,
you thought it was true enough to report, that I've broken someone's collarbone.
That this stuff on the Sunday program was going to relate to a previous campaign
incident where I've broken someone's collarbone and it's not true. That's not
true.
JOURNALIST: Peter Fraser supports Don Nelson's version of events in relation to that stoush,
what does he have to win by supporting that?
LATHAM: Peter Fraser supported the opposition campaign against me to be mayor in 1991.
He is part of that group who opposed me back then and I assume still oppose me
today. But it is just fantastic, isn't it, to think you can king hit someone in
the main street of Liverpool, as an elected representative, as a councillor, where
every single thing was subject to scrutiny in the local media - everything was
the subject of speculation and gossip at Liverpool Council - you can king hit
someone in the main street of Liverpool, on a Saturday night, and no-one, not
even your political opponents mention it for 15 years? I think it's pretty obvious
what has happened here; they've worked out, post the taxi driver, this is something
they can go back to and have a bigger political impact than they could have 15
years ago or any time in the interim. That's what's happened.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, you've raised in the past the issue of Tony Abbott's son, which is
something that obviously happened a long time in the past, do you think the issue
of your fidelity within your marriage is a public issue or do you think it is
something that should be off limits?
LATHAM: I have read and seen things in the media - I don't think there is any big secret
about this but in relation to Mr Abbott he was spending a fair bit of his time
in the Parliament talking about Labor families. Saying there was something wrong
with Simon Crean's dad, Kim Beazley's dad and we just made a judgment that if
he wants to talk about our families then we will talk about his. I'm not proud
of it, not proud that it happened but in the politics of the time, it was something
as a blocking measure to get him off what was a pretty unsavoury episode talking
about people's families in the House of Representatives. He has sort of lapsed
back into in recent times, but we made the point at that time.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it was mistake that year where you were pretty rough on your opponents
that it's made it a lot more fair game now because you've said some pretty harsh
things about your political opponents and other Labor MPs have said and now you
are perhaps paying for that?
LATHAM: No, we're all fair game. The moment you walk in here you are fair game but there
are tactics and counter-measures that are taken in the normal tough nature of
politics - tough but fair in nature, hopefully - and that episode was just part
of that.
JOURNALIST: You seemed a lot less tearful about all of this than on Friday, when you were
rather dismissive, flippant, on radio; why the change?
LATHAM: Michelle, if there is speculation in newspapers and the media that you are in
some video, and we all know the nature of what we are talking about here, I mean
it is a bit more serious than Don Nelson and his ridiculous claim from 15 years
- which, quite frankly, for 15 years has been a bit of a joke, the nature of the
incident. There is a big difference between media reporting rumours about this
video and what it means to me and my family, and that's pretty serious stuff.
Just contemplate yourself what we're talking about here and, if you had children,
would you want them to grow up thinking and knowing about it, even at the level
of a rumour? No, you wouldn't. You'd take it pretty seriously.
JOURNALIST: Where do you believe those rumours have come from?
LATHAM: Possibly a combination of the first and third groups that I mentioned earlier
on. All three actually - most likely all three.
JOURNALIST: So your first wife, your political opponents in Liverpool and the Government?
LATHAM: You're asking me my guess as to where, and I would say all three would be talking
about it. Have you heard someone from the Government talk about it in recent times?
I'm sure there is someone in this room that has heard the Government talk about
that video in the past week, a Government member or staff - strike me down if
I'm wrong.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, you've raised the video. Can you just clear it up for us -
LATHAM: There is no video - it was a buck's night, which was tame enough. It was organised
by other people. I turned up. I had a buck's night for the first marriage and,
believe you me, I didn't see the need for it the second time around. It was tame
enough and there's nothing there I would be embarrassed about, but there's no
video.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, you said that you've got the character to be Prime Minister; can you
just describe what your character is to us?
LATHAM: I'm a hard-working person. I'm passionate about the things I believe in. I believe
I've got certain skills to implement good policies for the benefit of the country.
I'm not perfect. I just regard myself as a fair dinkum, honest person. What you
see is what you get. There's no big secret about me. I get stuck in and have a
go on the things I believe in. I enjoy Australian larrikinism, as well, as a way
of life - you know, I think it is great to have mates and enjoy a joke the Australian
way. That is a big part of my character. I'm proud of it. It's one of the things
that makes me proud to be an Australian. So that's my best description of who
I am.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, do you feel that you can deny these rumours til you are blue in the
face, but do you worry that some voters might believe and think that where there
is smoke there is fire?
LATHAM: Obviously, I hope not. But you know the nature of politics. These things
have circulated for a long, long time. In the end, my greatest assurance and source
of strength, if you like, is that the Australian people are much more interested
in where the health and education systems are going to be 20 months from now than
what happened in Liverpool 20 years ago. It is only natural. The Australian people
are focused on the future. That's why I've been trying to focus on the future.
The Australian people have also had enough of the negativity in Australian politics.
That's why I've tried to be as positive as I can as Opposition Leader. That's
my judgment of the Australian people and I trust that's their judgment of me.
JOURNALIST: Are you closer to making a decision on the FTA with the USA?
LATHAM: No, we'll see the process through that we've embarked on for the Senate report.
It's described as a living agreement that is subject to change and the need for
more information and detail. We said that we would do that in a considered way;
we wouldn't be flying blind so we are going down that process, giving the Australian
people their say about the FTA but, just as importantly, getting all the facts
and detail before we make a judgment.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, in recasting your tax policy, will you be taking any notice of the
Access Economics report today that suggests that the figures in the budget may
not be as healthy as the Government would have us believe, or would you take the
budget papers as the figures that you will base your tax policy on?
LATHAM: The advice in the election campaign, of course, comes from the Treasury but
the Access Economics report confirms the Government has been on a spending spree,
and we've been making that point that we are committed to our budget pledge, which
is surplus budgets every year of the next Parliament, reducing net debt and also
bringing down taxation and expenditures as proportions of GDP. So we've got our
budget pledge and you can be guaranteed we're sticking to that pledge, 100 per
cent.
JOURNALIST:So if the Secretary of the Treasury comes to you, as Prime Minister after the
election, and says there is not as much money there as the budget papers suggested,
you will be committed to either increasing taxes or reducing spending to keep
the budget in surplus?
LATHAM: We won't be increasing taxes.
JOURNALIST: So that means you would [inaudible]
LATHAM: We would be tightening the budget - cutting waste and mismanagement, which is
what we've been doing in our policies and our work for the last couple of years.
That's the way in which we meet our financial commitments, our social investments.
If we have to continue that in Government, we would.
JOURNALIST: Access suggests it might be a bit more serious than that, though, it might involve
programs not just waste and mismanagement.
LATHAM: I've answered your question, Jim, we won't be raising taxes. JOURNALIST: Mr
Latham, I have a health and education question. On universities, if you're elected
in October or November is that enough time to introduce legislation to allow universities
to reverse 25 per cent HECS increases or will that not be possible until later
in the year? When are you going to detail what the Labor Party plans to do to
the 30 per cent health rebate?
LATHAM: That will be part of our policy announcements on health, but we've said that
we've got no plan to get rid of it. We want to improve it and we'll specify how.
On the first matter - hypothetical dates about the election, hypothetical dates
about when the Parliament comes back - in relation to universities, Jenny Macklin
is talking all that through with the universities and I'm sure there will be no
problem.
JOURNALIST: But you've told students and voters that from 2005 those HECS increases won't
go up -
LATHAM: But I don't know the election date and I don't know the feasibility, even when
we've got the election date, of getting the Parliament back before Christmas so
it's hypothetical -
JOURNALIST: So you don't know?
LATHAM: No, I don't know the election date.
JOURNALIST: But you've told students that these increases -
LATHAM: At the first available opportunity when we can legislate, obviously we are going
to reverse the 25 per cent HECS. What election date there might be, and what happens
with parliamentary sittings, that really is in the land of the hypothetical.
JOURNALIST: Mr Latham, are you going to leave the release of your tax policy until your
campaign launch?
LATHAM: No.
JOURNALIST: Is it almost ready to be delivered? When can we see it?
LATHAM: You'll see it when it's released. We've announced a lot of policy in recent
times. I know there is a very strong fascination with this particular policy but
in the normal course of events the election schedule, the three years, runs out
in November then we would have our tax and family policies out well in advance
for the Australian people to have a good look at them and hopefully support them.
JOURNALIST: What about your list of savings; have you added to that recently?
LATHAM: The good thing about the list - if you look down the back of all our policy
announcements, there's a list of how they are funded so that is the list. It was
the list for the baby care payment. It was the lift for the Youth Guarantee. It's
the list we have been producing for our social investment plans, fully costed
and fully funded.
JOURNALIST: As a living document; has PBS been added to that?
LATHAM: When you identify that as a saving, that's a budget decision we've made but
it had not been - there had been uncertainty about the PBS; would the Government
bring it back in this round of budgeting? Once we established that, we were able
to respond accordingly, mindful of our budget pledge to keep it in surplus when
we are in Government and ensure that we've got downward pressure on interest rates.
We had to make a tough decision there but as I've said we can't fund everything.
You just can't fund every single service that has been abolished by the Howard
Government. We can't restore every single cut back. We are going to do a lot in
health and education, in particular, and we've got a lot of those commitments
out there but we'll do it in a financially responsible way, consistent with our
budget pledge.
JOURNALIST: And tax cuts for every one under $52,000? LATHAM: You'll see the detail of our policy when it's released.
Ends.
|