E&OE....................
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me say just a couple of things about the conference.
This is the first Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference ever to be
held in South Africa. I understand I am in fact the first Australian Prime
Minister to have visited South Africa while in office, although several
of my predecessors have visited this country after leaving office.
The fact that it is being held in South Africa is very significant in itself
and the holding of the conference here is another very, very important signal
from the rest of the world of the importance it attaches to the transformation
to democracy and racial equality which has occurred in South Africa and
I know that all of South Africa's Commonwealth friends will wish that country
well as it grapples with the enormous task of transforming its society into
what it quite properly calls the new South Africa.
This conference also marks the return to Commonwealth membership of the
most populous nation in Africa, that is Nigeria, and President Obasanjo
was present at the opening ceremony and today as the democratically elected
leader of that country and that once again is a very important thing both
in substance and also the symbolism of it is immensely important.
I remain very much of the view that the Commonwealth is an extremely valuable
association. There isn't any in the world quite like it because it brings
together a group of nations which comprise something like a third of the
world's population. The member States are bound together by some common
historical linkages that in contemporary terms by a common commitment to
a certain set of values and although each of us as Commonwealth members
have our own particular regional, geographical and strategic associations
which in narrow ways are more concentrated and more intense than our broader
Commonwealth associations, it is a very valuable association for a country
such as Australia. It is through the Commonwealth for example that we have
linkages with the nations of Africa which we might not otherwise have. It
is through the Commonwealth that we can build on those sorts of linkages
and as was demonstrated in the roles played by some of my predecessors concerning
South Africa and Zimbawbe or Rhodesia as it then was, Australia can play
a very significant role so I regard the association as an extremely important
one and one that adds value to this country's overseas associations.
The audience I've just had with the Queen is normal in Commonwealth Heads
of Government gathering. As you know it is not customary to go to into the
details of the discussion which I don't intend to do, except to observe,
not surprisngly, we talked about the referendum last weekend, we discussed
in a general way arrangements for the visit to Australia next year by the
Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and I also briefed the Queen on the arrangements
that have been put in place regarding the opening of the Olympic Games by
the Governor-General.
Are there any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given that 45 per cent 9of Australians voted for a republic
last weekend what assurances were you able to give the Queen that she would
receive a warm welcome in Australia in March?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as I say Glenn, I'm not going to talk about what was discussed in
any detail in accordance with the normal custom but I have separately dealt
with that question. Australians are courteous people and I think I've already
said back in Australia that those people who are interested in her visit
will display interest, those who aren't will display disinterest. We are
a sophisticated, yet extremely courteous people and it was always my view
that the Queen would be received in a courteous fashion, even though by
some people indifferently, irrespective of the outcome and I don't think
the 45 percent who voted yes are any less courteous than the 55 percent
who voted no. I don't think courtesy has a republican hue or anti-republican
hue about it. I think it is a common Australian trait.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the Olympic Games. Did you indicate that Sir William Deane
would be opening it as the Head of State?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, let me simply say that I advised her of the arrangements that have
been put in place.
JOURNALIST:
But Prime Minister if Sir William Dean is our effective head of state, what's
the office held by the woman with whom you've just spent half an hour?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've said to you before Malcolm that by law the Queen is the Queen
of Australia. By undeniable constitutional convention the Governor-General
has become the effective head of state. Now that's been the position for
quite some time, it's been my position, it remains my position.
JOURNALIST:
Did the Queen endorse your decision to step aside Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
As I say, I don't intend to go into that. I advised The Queen of the arrangements.
PRIME MINISTER:
Could you give us some sense of the Queen's feelings about the Referendum
without going into detail?
PRIME MINISTER:
No look, please, I've indicated the areas that were discussed. As you know
it is the normal practice not to go into the details. It was a practice
that was respected by Mr Keating, and all of his predecessors so don't read
anything in particular into my not wanting to go into the details, but I
just choose to observe the normal practice.
JOURNALIST:
Did she indicate that she was looking forward to the visit to Australia
though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister why is that protocol necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Why is it necessary?
JOURNALIST:
Why is the protocol necessary? I mean if the Prime Minister is..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the protocol is necessary to maintain the above-politics character
of the office. That is my understanding of the reason as otherwise from
a canvassing of the views there could be construed a particular attitude
on a political issue and that would then be intruding the monarch's or sovereign's
views into a political issue. That is my understanding of why that protocol
is observed and I think it's perfectly correct and it's entirely in accord
with constitutional practice. I mean if I were, I mean I talk to the Governor-General
on a regular basis. I don't go into the details of those conversations for
exactly the same reasons.
That is the reason, and I think it's an entirely sound reason and entirely
in accord with the constitutional propriety of the position.
JOURNALIST:
Are you able to say what sort of atmosphere the meeting was held in then
Prime Minister? What was the tenor of the meeting? The tone of the meeting?
PRIME MINISTER:
A frank and cordial exchange of views. And it was good Durban water.
JOURNALIST:
Were there any more details that you could possibly give us about the Queen's
visit, like which States she'll be visiting and ..
PRIME MINISTER:
No I can't, they're still being worked out. I mean I must say that I haven't,
we've had some discussion about it, but I haven't really given it- as yet,
all the details haven't been finalised.
JOURNALIST:
Is it anticipated we'll get two more visits in a row given that she'll attend
CHOGM in Canberra?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well she will be coming to CHOGM, well
JOURNALIST:
That is two years in a row.
PRIME MINISTER:
One will be in March of 2000 and the other will be in November of 2001.
JOURNALIST:
November or early ..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well CHOGM will be sometime in October or November. There's something else
in November of 2001.
JOURNALIST:
An election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Melbourne Cup.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you're a prominent supporter of the role of the monarchy
in Australia. What was it like for you then to bring a personal report of
the referendum results to the Queen? How did you feel about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I think, I don't that that particularly entered my head.. Look
I think the Queen was aware of the result before our meeting this afternoon.
JOURNALIST:
But I'm asking about your feelings personally?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, forget it.
JOURNALIST:
There's been some speculation about Prince William coming to Australia.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not aware of the basis of any of that. There are no, the government
has no plans to issue any invitation, no.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you have any concerns at all that the Commonwealth doesn't
tend to the Pacific/South East Asian region to which we are very importantly
attached, and that it is Afro/Subcontinent-centric in any way. I mean just
today..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's interesting you raise that because I was thinking as I was sitting
around the table at the meeting that those who most quickly came with Australia
when INTERFET was put together were Commonwealth countries. The responses
we received from Britain, Canada and New Zealand were as speedy if not speedier
than most. So I don't think the Commonwealth association was found wanting
in relation to East Timor. It think it's something that people have tended
to overlook and indeed the involvement of Singapore, the involvement of
Malaysia,-now I don't want to decry in any way the contribution of non-Commonwealth
countries in our region such as Thailand, which has been magnificent, and
the Koreans, but if you look at it, the Commonwealth association, I'm not
saying it was the only reason, but I don't think you could suggest for a
moment when you look at the speed with which the British responded, and
the New Zealanders and the Canadians.
I mean the Canadians are very stretched. They have commitments in Kosovo,
they have commitments all around the world, they are an ocean and half a
world away geographically yet they have been very generous contributors.
So I think the Commonwealth association means something and that was very
much a contribution that was conditioned by an association with Australia
as much as it was a contribution that was conditioned by, well it was certainly
influenced by that. But it was also of course conditioned by Canada's very
long record of commitment to peacekeeping operations. I mean I think given
the other commitments of the Canadians it was very good.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, who will Australia support for the Secretary-General's position.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have already indicated that we are supporting Mr McKinnon.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, in the 1980s you came under some criticism for your views on
South Africa..
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I remember that.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think your views have changed and matured on these sorts of issues
over the years or what do you feel looking back on all that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I guess we all change and mature over the years. I have no doubt that
what happened here in South Africa in the early 1990s was right and just.
I have no doubt that it was made possible by the combined efforts of two
men, of Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk. Mandela, I think I have said before,
is one of the most impressive people I have met in life and I think it's
a remarkable tribute to mankind's capacity to forgive that a person who
could have lost 27 years of his life in detention without, in the eyes of
some, a proper process and the sort of appalling conditions in which he
was imprisoned can complete the transition that he completed is an extraordinary
thing. I think it's also fair to say that De Klerk did make a contribution.
To tell your own constituency that they have to surrender privileges that
they have had all their life is always a challenge for a political leader
and I think it's a remarkable experiment.not experiment, it is a remarkable
investment in human goodwill what's happened here. So if you are saying,
you know, was I right or wrong, look, I can only say what I have just said
that I think there has been a.I mean, back in the 1980's, Michelle, I never
said that I supported the regime, I argued for at that time, if I can remember
right by a slightly different approach to things like sanctions. And indeed
some of the most liberal thinkers of the old South Africa were opposed to
economic sanctions if I remember rightly. Alan Paton and Helen Suzman were
two people who fell into that category. But I mean, that's a bit academic
isn't it?
JOURNALIST:
Has your contact with Mr Mandela though changed your attitude to sanctions
as a tool in that kind of.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I mean, I don't really spend a lot of time, I mean, life moves on
and sanctions are.
JOURNALIST:
But do you think they are a valuable tool in circumstances other than the
ones.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, historically sanctions have been relative failures. I have to say
that history demonstrated they probably have some value in relation to South
Africa. I think they did. But they didn't work in Rhodesia, very effectively.
Years and years ago they didn't work in the old Abyssinia, now Ethiopia.
But the Americans have maintained them very strenuously in relation to Iraq
and many people would argue that they've had some impact there. I think
the jury has to be out, I think it depends entirely, Karen, on what the
particular circumstance is.
JOURNALIST:
So what's your view then about sanctions on Pakistan that the Commonwealth
was thinking about..
PRIME MINISTER:
On Pakistan as a result of.
JOURNALIST:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think that would be entirely premature. I don't think that would
be the right thing to do now, I think that would be overreacting at the
present time. Tony Wright was trying to ask a question.
JOURNALIST:
No, I already asked exactly the same question word for word.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what would your view then be on the movement within the
Commonwealth to have a greater policing role on errant States who abuse
human rights?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think you have got to have a sense of proportion about these things.
I mean, I don't suggest for a moment that you can conduct foreign policy
entirely on pragmatic grounds, you have got to have a mixture of principle
and pragmatism and getting the balance right is very important. I think
the approach that the Commonwealth is taking at the moment is about right
and it's having a lot of success. I mean, it did have an influence on Nigeria,
there's no doubt about that. And I think the process of talk and discussions
could have an impact on Pakistan. I think the, sort of, come the heavy straight
away given the history of that country would be a mistake.
JOURNALIST:
But the Commonwealth is looking at expanding the role of the Commonwealth
into other areas such as press freedom, for instance, and so on so that
there are guidelines being developed. How far do you think those guidelines
should go?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think you have to take these things carefully. I don't think you
should.and also I think we have to be very careful with multilateral associations.
We have to be very careful about multi-national associations. You have got
to be careful about overlap. I mean, there are other multi-national arrangements
that have commitments and declarations of this kind and I think we have
got to be very careful we don't have too much of an overlap.
JOURNALIST:
Has East Timor been raised in any of your meetings today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, yes. I had a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Singapore
and we talked about East Timor at that. And it was briefly mentioned in
the plenary session today.
JOURNALIST:
Has the issue of a republic coloured in any way your dealings with the other
leaders?
PRIME MINISTER:
With whom?
JOURNALIST:
With the other leaders? Have they raised it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no. Well, there's a bit of interest by a couple of them but it hasn't
coloured it. I mean, I don't - it hasn't made any difference where they
don't ask.I don't say to any of them: how would you have voted sort of thing.
I mean, everybody, I mean, you might have your jokes about these things
but in all seriousness people quite properly regard it as our business.
JOURNALIST:
In what context was East Timor raised in the plenary session Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
I made a reference to it. We were talking about standing up for the democratic
process. And I said during the plenary session that I thought what had been
done by a number of Commonwealth countries it's really my earlier point
that when you look at it the Interfet has got a strong Commonwealth hue
about it. Mozambique and Fiji are talking about a contribution to stage
two. And the countries are already there. So there's a very strong Commonwealth
presence and I just said it was an example of how Commonwealth nations have
stood up for the right thing in relation to what had occurred in East Timor
and I also made the observation that although it was not of direct concern
to the Commonwealth because Indonesia was not a member that the fact that
Indonesia had moved so positively towards democracy was a very encouraging
sign.
JOURNALIST:
Isn't it interesting that you raised it and no-one else in the Commonwealth
did? The Secretary-General had a press conference yesterday where he talked
about trouble spots of the world and he talked about Saddam and he didn't
even talk about Kosovo.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, is it strange that I raised it? Well, I don't know.
JOURNALIST:
No, not strange that you raised it but isn't it significant that you raised
it and no-one else.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am not saying nobody else, I mean, it was raised fairly early by
me after the discussion was started so I suppose I got in before anybody
else. I mean, I don't know if anybody else would have raised it or not but
I don't think there is anything strange about that.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, could you give us a run down on what else you..
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Could you give us a run down on what else you said in your contribution
or contributions today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I spoke of Nigeria's, you know, the welcome return of Nigeria. I naturally
extended a bit of my thanks to Thabo Mbeki for South Africa's hospitality
and I made a very brief reference to Timor and the Commonwealth contribution.
But it was a very brief intervention. I believe in brief interventions at
these things, it's very important. But I have got a few more things to say
and I'll probably have something to announce tomorrow in relation to an
Australian contribution.
JOURNALIST:
The trade aspect, Mr Howard, what would you hope to see out of the communique
in relation to.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we would like to see the strongest possible endorsement of a comprehensive
world trade round. And that is in Australia's interests and I have a pretty
single-minded view about pursuing those interests and that's what we'd like
to see. Now, whether we get every last word we like I don't know because
you have some different influences invading this but by and large I think
that is what we will go after and I hope we can achieve it.
JOURNALIST:
There is a report to the Commonwealth which suggests a plan for restricting
the trade in weapons, there's a small line..Given your interest in Australia's.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'd look at that sympathetically. I would because I think there are
too many hand guns in too many hands in too many countries in the world.
And anything that can be done to remove them the better. I hold very strongly
to the view that if you have a weapon in your house or on your person you
are far more likely in rage and passion to use it than not.
JOURNALIST:
Would you recommend to APEC that they adopt the brooch approach rather than
a silly jacket?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they have a brooch and a jacket. You get both at APEC because there
are fewer nations I think. See you later.
[ends]