Subjects: Subjects: China-Australia relationship; LNG contract; Senator Minchin; India-Pakistan conflict
E&OE...........
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll just make a couple of brief comments and then I'll answer any questions you have.
I've just completed a very lengthy meeting with the Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji and our discussions continued over dinner. I can report that our relationship at a Government to Government level is excellent. We covered most elements of the bilateral relationship. We have agreed to negotiate a new framework agreement for economic cooperation and a statement covering that has been released. We have also agreed to reactivate the security dialogue between Australia and China.
During the meeting I also had an opportunity of putting as strongly as I could Australia's case, or more particularly a case on behalf of the Northwest Shelf Consortium for the LNG contract on which a decision will be taken by the Chinese authorities I imagine in the near future. I was given an opportunity to put our case strongly. It was listened to. As I indicated earlier the competition is fierce. It'll be tough but I was given an opportunity and my sense is that the matter, whilst a decision is not going to occur I guess in the next couple of days, it will occur fairly soon but we were given an opportunity of putting our case very strongly and I don't regard the matter as finally decided but it is tough.
Any questions?
JOURNALIST:
Did you have occasion today to reprimand Senator Minchin and ask him to withdraw his suggestion that the Liberal and National parties become one. Did you receive a call from the Deputy Prime Minister Mr Anderson complaining about this proposition and if so what comment do you have.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't comment on discussions I have with my Ministers. I can, however, tell you that I haven't spoken to Mr Anderson today. I haven't spoken to Mr Anderson for several days.
JOURNALIST:
But have you spoken to Mr Minchin?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't comment on the substance of discussions with my colleagues.
JOURNALIST:
I'm not asking you about substance.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I know you're not. But I've given you my answer.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you mentioned that you had talked about most aspects of the bilateral relationship, can I ask you did you raise today or do you plan to raise with President Jiang the issue of human rights?
PRIME MINISTER:
It was raised today by me, in the discussion I alluded to the human rights dialogue which we put in place several years ago and we both agreed that that dialogue had worked in a practical way quite effectively.
JOURNALIST:
Was there discussion about the Dalai Lama?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not during the formal meeting. Over dinner it came up and I remarked to the Premier that I had had criticism on one side of the argument when I was in Australia and I had had criticism on the other side of the argument while I was in China. He did not complain to me about any aspect of the Dalai Lama. We merely talked about it.
JOURNALIST:
A survey published today shows 46% of Australians want you to stay on as Prime Minister and the same survey asked respondents for their choice of preferred replacement between Tony Abbott and Peter Costello and two thirds said none of the above. Do you have any comment on those two results.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have anything to add on that matter.
JOURNALIST:
Will it influence your decision on ..
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have anything to add.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you have been making a lot of the fact that price is not the only consideration in the gas deal, what sort of response did you get to the argument about security of supply and experience from Premier Zhu.
PRIME MINISTER:
The impression I gained is that everything will be taken into account, as it should be, but the decision hasn't been taken and I felt that I gave it it's best shot and there was a good opportunity, as there had been yesterday when I met Li Peng, and I'll be raising the matter again with the President tomorrow. So the Chinese Government will be well aware of our strong support for this project, and the virtues that we see in the Australian bid. But of course we're not the only player on the field.
I just wanted to add that seeing that the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK has been in town, partly on the same issue, perhaps I should take up some boxing lessons.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, I think given that it was Minister Vaile's visit to Taiwan in 1999 that led to the suspension of the security dialogue, was there any discussion about how Australia should treat Taiwan diplomatically or were any undertakings given.
PRIME MINISTER:
No. No.
JOURNALIST:
So what was the basis on which the dialogue will resume..
PRIME MINISTER:
I, at the meeting simply proposed that the security dialogue should be reactivated. It was never formally suspended, it simply didn't go on happening, and I proposed that it be reactivated. The Premier readily agreed.
Can I just make the point so there is no misunderstanding. The Chinese Premier's agreement to the reactivation of the security dialogue was in no way induced by any statements, undertakings, remarks or reference to Australia's relationship with Taiwan.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you said today at the Central Party School that we respect your system. This is a system that allows no political opposition, [inaudible] it has tens of thousands of dissidents in labour camps across the country.Do you really respect this system?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that if you look at the context of the remarks, what I was indicating was that I respected their right to have their own system. Of course we have a different system. Of course you know I support a completely democratic system and I rather made the point in the last answer I gave that how our system works. I don't think it's reasonable to construe, if you look at the context of my remarks, that I evinced any expression of respect for other than a democratic system.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you met with the Mayor of Beijing today and offered him Australia's help with the Olympics, did he give you any indication of whether he would take up that offer.
PRIME MINISTER:
The answer is yes, and that assistance will come in a variety of ways and through a variety of devices. Obviously Australian companies will bid and they will have to compete in the normal way. Our Olympic people will provide assistance. I am sure that people who have been involved in the organisation of the Sydney Olympics have already travelled to China. And I'm sure more of that will happen in the years ahead. I had the fortune of meeting the Minister, he was the Minister who accompanied me on my visit in 1997 so I knew him quite well, and we had a very lively discussion over lunch about the Beijing bid and about what lay ahead of them, and I am certain that in numerous ways Australia, and Sydney in particular, will be helping.
JOURNALIST:
Can you tell us the biggest advantage, Australian advantage, in the natural gas contract compared with other countries, Indonesia, Britain and Qatar. It is said that their price is very cheap and Australia is much more expensive, and the Australian advantage can attract Chinese Government. What do you think is the most important advantage ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think all round the Australian bid is the best. All round I think the Australian bid is better. Clearly security of supply is a very important consideration. But it's not the only aspect of the bid that's commendable. As to what will happen, I don't know. That is in the hands of the authorities. I've had an opportunity of putting as strongly as circumstances allowed, the Australian case and I can't do more than that.
JOURNALIST:
You made several comments today that the relationship has matured over the last thirty years. If the relationship has matured to that extent why is it necessary that human rights issues have to be quarantined off to one side ?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't accept that human rights issues have been quarantined off to one side. What I would argue is that we have found a way of achieving some practical outcomes in that area consistent with the reality that China has a position regarding certain issues which is different from Australia's. We understand that. Part of a maturing in a relationship is to recognise what can be achieved, given different systems and what can't be achieved. That's a sign of maturity. It's a sign of immaturity to pretend that you can ignore the realities of the differences between the two systems.
JOURNALIST:
I'm just wondering how you would react to comments made by a Chinese political scientist I spoke to this morning, who commented that he thought China's policy of sending back North Korean asylum seekers was similar in some ways to Australia's policy of sending away asylum seekers coming to Australia on boats or at least escorting them to third countries.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I wouldn't comment on it at all. I don't know the context and I don't have any further comment.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can you give us a taste of your talks tomorrow with President Jiang? Will it all be LNG?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'll certainly talk about LNG but it won't be all LNG. I'll be talking about the international affairs, particularly regional affairs, and the broader foreign affairs character of the relationship perhaps more than I have in my discussions with Li Peng and the Premier.
JOURNALIST:
India and Pakistan?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that will obviously come up as it did tonight over dinner with the Premier.
JOURNALIST:
Just a supplementary question, Britain is withdrawing its diplomatic staff from the region. Is that a course of action that Australia might..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I was not aware that the Brits were withdrawing their diplomatic staff. I won't respond on the run. I'll get some advice on that.
I might give a supplementary answer and that is that the Australian Government is very concerned about the tension between India and Pakistan. It's been a source of concern to me and to the Australian Government for some months now. There's a degree of tense readiness between the two of them that has to be of concern and as a friend of both countries I would urge the maximum restraint on both sides. Of course there's been provocation but the consequences of an outbreak of hostilities would be horrendous for both countries and very destabilising for the whole region. And I can only hope that the calmness that both Prime Minister Mr Vajpayee has demonstrated to date and also the courage and resolution that I believe General Musharraf has displayed since September of last year that both of those qualities will come through and there won't be any further deterioration in the situation. But it is a cause of very legitimate concern.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, I'm sorry, I apologise in advance but I'm going to have to ask you this question again because we had a camera failure and it has nothing to do with the directness of your answer. But have you spoken to Senator Minchin about a speech he intended to make calling for the amalgamation of the Liberal and National Parties?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't discuss the contents of the numerous discussions I have with my ministers on all variety of subjects.
JOURNALIST:
Will he make that call?
PRIME MINISTER:
Ask him.
JOURNALIST:
I just wanted to get back to the discussion you had with Premier Zhu in relation to the India/Pakistan conflict . Could you explain a little bit of context of that, what you said to Premier Zhu, what Premier Zhu said in response, and the sort of level of concern the Chinese are having about this [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
The Premier naturally is concerned about the situation but he was on the side of optimism that there wouldn't be a serious deterioration.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, since you're disinclined to comment specifically on the Minchin matter maybe you could share your thoughts about the desirability or otherwise of an amalgamation between the Liberal and National Parties
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'd make this observation that the current arrangement has delivered victory to the Coalition on three successive occasions and the existence of two separate parties at a federal level has not proved to be a barrier to political success. It's self-evident. So it's not something that's really on my radar screen. I see no compelling need. I respect the fact that the National Party is a separate entity and working in harmony to defeat the common enemy is always the principle goal for me. Keeping Labor out is my principle goal.
JOURNALIST:
Are you pleased that almost 50% of voters want you to stay on? Does public opinion play any role in your decision to step off the stage?
PRIME MINISTER:
I've got nothing to add on that. The hands are still relaxed around the grip of the bat.
JOURNALIST:
Does that mean [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. You know exactly..didn't you ever play cricket Glenn?
JOURNALIST:
He was a bowler.
PRIME MINISTER:
Was he?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you mentioned before that you didn't expect a decision on the gas in the next couple of days...
PRIME MINISTER:
No no I said I didn't expect it in the next couple of days but I don't really know. I don't really expect it in the next couple of days but I imagine it will be fairly soon. But I don't know when.
JOURNALIST:
You got no indication of a time frame ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of exactly when? The sense I had was it would be fairly soon.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard I would just like to ask one question for the Australian history books if I might.
PRIME MINISTER:
The Australian history books?
JOURNALIST:
At the school for the cadres today you seemed to indicate that perhaps Sir Robert Menzies was wrong to have held a referendum to try and ban the Communist Party in Australia. Do you think he was wrong at the time to have done that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the Australian people made the right decision in rejecting the proposal.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think the Prime Minister of time was right to put the referendum ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I find it sort of difficult to separate that out from the response that I've given. The view I hold now is that that was, you know the right decision was taken. And I suppose you can extrapolate from that an argument that maybe it shouldn't have been put but it doesn't mean to say that.that doesn't automatically follow. I just believe that the right decision was taken by the Australian people. That's a view that I've held for quite a lot of years too. It hasn't just sort of come upon me, if you want the complete history.
[Ends]