Intense. Emotional. Compelling. I saw a raw, in your face, ‘Please take me as I am’ press conference by Mark Latham to the Canberra press gallery this morning to “clear the air”. I’m a Latham supporter, though – here’s the transcript so you can judge for yourselves.

 

FEDERAL LABOR LEADER TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA MONDAY, 5 JULY 2004

Subjects: Political Priorities, FTA, Tax Policy, Education, Health

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 Australias 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 Australias 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, Ive 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 paper’s yesterday, something about a video at a bucks night. Some people say the second marriage; I didnt have a bucks 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 he 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, I 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. I 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 (in The Australian)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.

Geof Parry (Network 7): 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.

Samantha Maiden, The Australian: 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. Theres a big difference between rumour and fact and this has been for six years now a rumour and nothing more than that.

Samantha: 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. Its 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.

Jim Middleton, ABC TV News: Mr Latham, you spoke of the Howard Governments 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.

Jim: No intention of having anything of that kind?

LATHAM: We’ve got nothing planned to bring back ANIMALS, certainly not.

Jim: 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.

Jim: 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.

Michael Brissenden, 7.30 Report: 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.

Jim Middleton: 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.

Michelle Grattan, The Age: 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?

Samantha: 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 theSunday program was going to relate to a previous campaign incident where I’ve broken someone’s collarbone and its 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 its 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.

Michelle: You seemed a lot less tearful about all of this 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 bucks night, which was tame enough. It was organised by other people. I turned up. I had a bucks 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 theres no video.

Louise Dodson, Sydney Morning Herald: 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.

Dennis: 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 were 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.

Jim Middleton: 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 wont be raising taxes.

Samantha: 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.

Samantha: But you’ve told students and voters that from 2005 those HECS increases wont 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 its hypothetical.

Samantha: So you dont know?

LATHAM: No, I don’t know the election date.

Samantha: 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 its 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. Its the list we have been producing for our social investment plans, fully costed and fully funded. Dennis Shanahan, The Australian: 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.

Dennis: And tax cuts for every one under $52,000?

LATHAM: You’ll see the detail of our policy when its released.