PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT -PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE-
17 NOVEMBER 1983
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: Ladies and gentlemen, I thought I'd just make a brief
statement about the visit which will commence later on today
and then be available for any questions you'd like to ask.
I'm going to refer firstly to the visit to Thailand. As I
said in the Parliament yesterday, of course I'm looking forward
to that visit with Bill Hayden to meet Prime Minister Prem
and Foreign Minister Siddhi. We will naturally be talking about
two ranges of issues the bilateral issues between our two
countries and the question of concern recently in matters
raised particularly by the Singaporean Foreign Minister:
our relations with ASEAN.
While I'm there I shall making two important statements, one
on regional political issues and the other on regional economic
issues. I can't stress too much the importance that we attach
to this visit. It will be the first visit to Thailand by an
Australian Prime Minister since my Labor predecessor, Gough
Whitlam, was there in 1974. On the actual ASEAN issue, as
I said in the Parliament yesterday, we believe that it's
appropriate now that these issues should be discussed in the
talks in Thailand. Bill will be following them up when he
goes to Indonesia in talks with Dr Mochtar. And I believe,
and I'm quite confident, that out of these direct discussions
there and Bill's follow up in Jakarta, and the opportunities
that I'll have in Dehli to talk with the representatives of
Singapore and Malaysia, I'm quite confident that we will be
able to have a clear understanding of what is basically an
identical position on the major thrust of our concern about
Indo-China.
The purpose of the discussion, of course, will not simply be
to clear up those points but in the process I will be emphasising,
as Bill and I have, this matter of importance that this Goi'ernment
is going to make its decisions in regard to all national
questions as a sovereign, independent nation. ' And on the
basis of the assessment of this Government of what the interests
of Australia demand. Out of all those discussions, both there
and in Bangkoki Bill's in Jakarta, my further discussions in
India, we will continue to see what we cain do to try and help
the resolution of the situation in Indo-China. Repeating as
both Bill and I have said from the beginining that we don't
in any way over-estimate our capacities ini that regard or
under-estimate the difficlties of the i-sueCS with which We're
d e al. i ng.
PM: cant
The second stage, of course, is the visit to Dehli for the
purpose of the CHOGM meeting. I'll make a couple of preliminary
comments about that and then go to some of the issues.
Obviously it's my first CHOGM meeting and I and my Government
attach importance to the meeting. It gives the opportunity
of bringing together heads of government from a wide and
diverse range of countries to come together by certain interests.
Naturally enough I'm looking forward to the opportunity that
this will provide of meeting a range of leaders from the
Commonwealth countries many of whom I have not yet had the
opportunity of meeting.
Coming to the conference itself. There are, as we see it, two
major agenda items at the meeting. one, if you like, dealing
with the international political situation and the other
with the international economic scene, particularly as that
international economic situation effects the welfare of
developing countries. I'd just make these points generally
about these major agenda items as far as we are concerned.
I will be making what I hope will be useful and constructive
contributions to these two major agenda items. I will not
be attempting to make any dramatic new initiative nor, may I
say, will I be adopting positions at the conference on themes
which are different from those which my Government pursues at
home. As far as the first general item is concerned the international
political situation I will be stressing the great importance
that our Government attaches to the need for constructive and
realistic approaches in the area of disarmament and international
arms control. There are two particular points that I'd make
in that regard as to why we have a deep interest in that.
Firstly, given that we have in this country joint facilities
which are significant in the whole question of the verification
of arms control, we have a right therefore to have a position
on this issue. We are particularly concerned for that reason.
And, of course, secondly, and it's heightened somewhat by the
recent decision that the Government has taken in regard to the
supply of uranium we have a particularly vested interest in
making sure that the non-proliferation treaty is made as
effective as possible and that there be the strictest adherence
to the principles in that treaty.,
On the international economic issues agenda, on behalf of
our Government I will be urging that there should be flexi-ble
and realistic responses to the serious contemporary international
situation. Now, of course, finally for any of the countries
represented at CHOGM, as for indeed many other countries in the
world, ultimately their economic well-being will be primarily
determined by the sets of economic decisions that they make
themselves. But as we know we all live i~ n an inter-dependent
world and we will be arguing that it's crucial that the domestic
policies of the major countries, and particularly of the United
States, should be of a kind which are not going to of themselves
to involve avoidable economic hardships for the rest of the
world.
PM: cont
And that of course particularly refers to the adverse impact
that there will be on the rest of the world in an economic and
trading sense if there's a continuation of large domestic
deficits in the United States. And of course what is required
in current economic difficulties internationally is a
strengthening of the international institutions whose primary
concern is to facilitate the economic development of the
less developed countries. And we will be in tac contribution
that I make at-CHOGM stressing that point so that there can
be a restoration of the opportunities for growth and the
creation of a free and open international trading system.
And while I will be addressing those issues in those generalterms
in the contribution that I make I will hope to be making
some specific contribution to the program on those issues.
In respect of current political items may I just say that
obviously I will be looking forward on behalf of Australia
to hearing from other Commonwealth countries and the
Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Sonny Ramphal, as to
their assessment of the current position in Grenada. You
know on behalf of the Australian Government that I've made
quite clear that we are not going to be providing armed
forces for the peace-keeping force. We will consider whether
there is any other contribution that we, together with other
Commonwealth countries, may be able to make other than the
contribution of armed forces to any peace-keeping there.
I shall also, of course, be registering the concern of our
Government at the irresponsible unilateral declaration of
independence by the Turkish section in Cyprus and as I said
yesterday I will be indicating that we will be prepared with
our Commonwealth colleagues to take whatever steps may be
possible to restore the unity and sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the island and to safeguard the legitimate interests
of the two major communities on the island.
Just finally may I refer to the fact that, of course, the
general question of Southern Africa will be a matter of
discussion at the conference either specifically in formal
sessions or in the corridors and I will be indicating the
strengthening of the position of Australia as a result of
recent decisions by our Government.
One that might be regarded as a minor item, but as you will
appreciate is a matter of some p~ irticular interest to me
in regard to the operation of the Commonwealth itself, I believe
that the initiative taken two or three years ago to establish
a Commonwealth Trade Union Secretariat is a sensible one.
I will be indicating that I think that the effectiveness
of the Commonwealth itself will be strengt-hened in addition-to
the regularity and formalisation of the meetings of heads of
governments that other institutions within the Commonwealth
also seek to have a degree of co-operation which is reflected
I think Usefully in the establishment of the Commonwealth Trade
Union Secretariat.
Ladies and gentelcinen, that's all I wIould like to say at this
stage. I ' in open to any que'stions if you'd like to address themn.
DENNIS GRANT: Mr. Hawke, in respect of this Bretton Woods
proposal which you will be specifically addressing, could I
ask you a question, but could I ask you to answer it in
two ways, firstly as an economist and secondly as a Prime
Minister. PM: They are mutually exclusive are they? OK, I'll try.
GRANT: Will you be supportive of the proposal for
PM: Speaking as an economist it really is an unreal
di" chotomy you are putting to me as an economist let me say
this. We share the concern of Mr. Muldoon who is identified
as the author of these proposals. We share the concern of
Mr. Muldoon and others about the basic issue which is letting
them make this proposal and that is a feel. ing that the world
of the 1980s is a very different one from that of the
immediate post-war period in which the institutions were
established and that there needs to be an examination of the
best way in which the international community can provide
the support system and the stimulatory mechanisms which are
going to address the problems, particularly of the developing
world. And so we recognise that there have been difficulties
in the operations of those instruments, particularly the
IMF and the World Bank. We will be seeking to say
that the first emphasis should be upon trying to make those
institutions more effective and you will appreciate that
steps are under way to try and bring~ that result about,
including, I'm pleased to say, the initiatives of the United
States administration in regard to their commitments to the
IMF. Now I believe that if you look at the way in which
Mr. Muldoon has been talking about these proposals there has
been some change in his approach in that he is not now stressing
so much the gathering together of another great international
conference, but he seems to be talking now more about at least
in the first step of some core group of leaders of some
nations. So, both as an economist and as a Prime Minister,
let me say, we will be indicating our sharing of the concern
about what is a real problem, but our tendency will be
towards seeking to make the existing institutions more
effective. That-does not preclude the possiblity perhaps at
some further stage of looking at the possibility of some
conference, large or small, but I think that is the important
first step.
KEN BEGG: Prime Minister, do you'have any reason to believe
that the Americans may have been responsible in some way for
our difference of opinion with ASEAN, particularly the
Singaporean Foreign Minister?
PM: No, I don't think the Americans have been responsible.
Ithink that the past record under previous Labor and non-Labor
Governments in this country would indicate a tendency at times
for those sorts of problems to arise autonomously from
within some of the ASEAN countries. You would be aware of thle
difficulties that the previous Fraser Government had with ASEAN,
and particularly with Singapore inregard to a number of these
issues. You remember the civil aviation matter and so on and
the question when they were no longer prepared to recognise
the Pol Pot regime. So there is a record which shows that
the current difficulties are not something which has just
arisen now. Now, I am aware of what has come out in one
newspaper in this country relating to alleged off the record
background briefings which now seem in some respects to need a
new definition, but I don't want to enter into that. It seems
to me that that is a matter between that newspaper and with
that correspondent and the Americans. I notice the press
release that has been put out by the United States Embassy in
which they deny the thrust of that story and they make the
point, which I think is a perfectly valid one, it is not in
the United States interests, it is not in ASEAN interests and
not in Australian interests to have any significant divergences
or public disputes. That seems to me to be an obviously
correct statement and I accept it. It is conceivable that
in some background conversations there have been some
emphases made. I don't accept that if that has happened that
that in any way reflects the position of the United States
administration. I am particularly pleased to note in the
press release from the Embassy, Ken, they go out of their way
to stress their pleasure if I can put it that way with the
statement on behalf of the Australian Government by Bill
Hayden in regard to the ANZUS situation.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you think that as a result of
the current problems with the ASEAN countries that the
Australian initiative concerning Vietnam is now a lost cause?
PMI wouldn't say it is a lost cause, but I think it is right
tEo get that initiative, as you call it, into its perspective.
I repeat what both Bill Hayden and I have said from the
beginning. We haven't tried to overstate what it is that we
are about nor the difficulties of the objective of getting a
more constructive dialogue between all the parties to the issue.
No, I think that the conditions which made it realistic to
think about that still pertain. That is that despite the
current diversion, if you like, our relations with the ASEAN
countries are sound and good. our relations with China are
excellent. Our relations with the United States are
excellent and we do have a capacity for dialogue with Vietnam.
Now, all those basic conditions still pertain. I don't think
anything that has happened changes those basic conditions.
Therefore, within the limitations that we acknowledged at the
beginning, I think there is still a capacity to try and
facilitate
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, without pre-empting the talks in Bangkok,
do you * ee the emphasis in the discussions over the rift in
ASEAN being on reclarifying Australia's position on Kampuchea,
or telling the ASEAN nations that Australia will determine its
own policy?
PM: Well, I think it is a melding of both. You will be
aware that I won't be having to say anything new in
Bangkok for both Bill Hayden and I within the Parliament
and elsewhere have emphasised as strongly as we can our
view about the situation in Kampuchea which is in regard to
the fundamentals at one with the ASEAN countries. We have
criticised as strongly as it is possible to do the invasion
of Kampuchea by the forces of Vietnam and have indicated
that the withdrawal of those forces is a necessary precondition
of the emergence of an acceptable condition in
Kampuchea. So-I don't have to go to Thailand and say that
for the first time. I think the task is to make it clear
to the Thai leaders that that is our position, that we have
stated it publicly and we reiterate it to them. Within the
context of doing that I will, of course, be explaining the
reasons why we did not co-sponsor the ASEAN resolution on
Kampuchea and I will be emphasising in that context that of
course it is not only the right, but indeed the responsibility
of any Australian Government in assessing its position on
these matters to do so independently and in a way which
reflects our judgement of the best interests of this country.
Let me conclude by saying that I find in these circumstances
I find no difficulty or contradiction in that situation in
that what we adjudge to be in Australia's best interest
and what we believe is the right assessment of the position
in Kampuchea. I see no basic divergence between that
judgement and that analysis on our part and that of ASEAN.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Fraser put a great deal of credence and
significance on the Commonwealth and indeed CHOGM. Can I ask
if you put that same form of significance and credence on
the meeting that essentially can't force an issue and doesn't
have the power to force through decisions that they make?
PM: Well let me make 2-3 comments about that quickly. I am
not in the business of trying to denigrate my predecessor.
He is past and nothing is served by engaging in that exercise.
I tried gently in my opening remarks to make the point that
I am not going to use CHOGM as an opportunity for appearing to
put positions or initiatives which are not consistent with
policies that we put at home. Secondly, I would say that I
don't think it is a fair assessment to down-grade CHOGM in the
way I think was implicit in your question because their
track record has some significant plusses in it. Indeed, I
think no other institution internationally could have
produced the outcome in Zimbabwe, that did in fact come out of
the Commonwealth. So I think the value of the Commonwealth
is to recognise its strengths and its limitations. You
tended to emphasise its limitations. I think once you approach
it in that way there is the capacity of getting the best out
of it.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hlawke, how important do you think it is for
Australia to develop and broaden its links with Vietnam,
particularly as part of the initiatives which you have
referred to. And secondly, are we prepared to do this if
countries such as China and the United States make it clear
that they oppose this approach?
PM: I think the correct answer to that, Paul, is along these
li1nes. I think it would be against the interests of
Australia ( inaudible)
if we were to say look, it is important above all else that
we strengthen the relations with Vietnam and say that could
conceivably have certain plusses about it. You have got to
put these things in . the balance. It is tremendously important
for the future of this country. There is nothing more
important for the future of this country than that Australia
has very sound and constructive relations with the range
of countries in our area because the future welfare of our
children and their children is going to depend ' upon
Australia being able positively to be linked into the very
significant economic development which has been, is and will
continue to take place in this area. We as a Government are
not going to do anything in respect of one country which if
pursued mindlessly would prejudice our capacity so to link in
to the optimal extent with the other countries. I think the
secret, if I can put it that way, is that we have to understand
and the other countries of the area have to understand, that
it is in none of our interests that Vietnam continues to be in
a situation of virtual isolation in the international
community resting solely almost solely if I can put it that
way on a relationship with the Soviet Union and so I hope
that gradually through these processes of dialogue to which
I have referred and that there will be able to be developed
a situation not simply where we are able to develop an
effective relationship with Vietnam, but that would be part of
a process in which Vietnam itself is brought broadly back into
the community of nations. Now that is, I think, a correct
statement of objectives and principles. I can see that giving
effect to those objectives and those principles may create
difficulties, but I believe that it is capable of being
achieved. JOURNALIST: Can I bring you back, just for a second to a
question raised by Ken Begg earlier? Apart from the official
document put out by the US Embassy yesterday, have you had
any personal assurances from the Americans that there are
no basis in these claims that have been made consistently over
the last couple of. days and not just by the Sydney Morning
Herald. PM: I had, as you know, a discussion with the United States
Ambassador recently and you would imagine that we discussed
this issue and without going into the details of that
discussion, it is fair to say that he did give me that assurance.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could I ask you on a different
subject a French business daily has reported that
quoting you as saying that Australia is prepared to review
uranium exports on certain conditions and you are quoted
as saying " we shall deliver 250 tonnes of uranium late in 1984".
PM: Yes, that has been brought to my attention. Let me say
unequivocally that that report is wrong. There is no
foundation for it and to save your time I merely indicate
that there is a transcript a full transcript of that
conversation that I had with the French journalist on 8th
of this month and that is available in my office.
JOURNALIST: Sir, Mr. Cheysson said yesterday he would be
surprised if the Australian Government did not meet the
commitment on the contracts. Do you think he has got reason
to be surprised?
PM: Well, I simply put the position as it is. I don't think
that the putting of that position is aided by my commenting
upon the state of mind of Mr. Cheysson. The position is that
we indicated that we are not going to deliver uranium to
France at any point before the due date which is the end
of the latter part of 84, as you know. We have indicated
quite clearly that we will continue to have discussions with
the French. We will be having the Slattyer enquiry and
together in both ways we will be trying to achieve a situation
where the French would not be persisting with their tests.
Let me make the point that it is quite clearly not in
Australia's interests to create a situation of disarray, not
merely with France, but with the European community and that
is something, of course, that we are not seeking to achieve.
It would be futile to try and achieve that position but at
the same time we have to take account and I take account
and the Government takes account of the well-based concern
about the actions of the French in regard to nuclear testing
and so our current position is clear. We will continue to
address ourselves to it. Both Bill Hayden and myself aid
other relevant Ministers and nothing is served by speculating
about a future position. We are not, as I say, going to be
making any early deliveries. We will be addressing ourselves
to the situation in the hope that we will be able to have an
acceptable situation between us and the French on this issue.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could you describe the
circumstances in your meeting, some years ago with a man
described by the Opposition last week as having mafia
connections or a mafia background?
PM: Yes, I can. Before I do that can I take it that there
are no further questions on the international
Yes, let me make it quite clear that as I think you all
understand, the meeting that you refer to was one of total
innocence and one-offedness. In 1978 I went to a I don't
know what you'd cal. it a cafe/ bar that had been suggested
to me as an interesting place near where I was staying. I
went there with David Combe, who for his own reasons has seen
fit with recent-circumstances to raise this issue. And spent
a couple of hours there and this gentlemen whose name
what was it Sal Ameno or whatever it is apparently was
there -a somewhat Daman Runyonesque character, as I
recall but may I say if I saw him as he walked into this
room again, I wouldn't recognise him. I never saw him again
and left and that was it. I wouldn't have known what he
was then. It has been indicated to me subsequently what
he was and is and that was the beginning and the end and
I don't imagine that the gentleman, Mr. Combe, who has seen
fit to raise this issue, suggests that that meeting was
established that he has mafia connections or links and, of
course, that is true equally as it is with me.
JOURNALIST: Sir, did you have any indications since then
that you may have been filmed or photographed by the FBI
as you were coming or going?
PM: No, I had no indications then or since. I'm not in
constant communication or even unconstant communications
with the FBI.
OAKES: They didn't send you the negatives?
PM: NO, I'm not aware of anything like that, Laurie.
JOURNALIST: Can you recall anything that was discussed
with the genteleman
PM: No, I can't. I can't. I can just remember that David
and I were rather amused by the way the fellow talked and
he was a character.