% UTRLIA L
PFFIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OE PRESS CONFERENCE -PARLIAMENT HOUSE
8 MAY 1984
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
I believe that you probably want to ask me some
questions in regard to the issues and the events that have
arisen today and so I'm available for any questions that
you'd like to put to me. I hope you understand that I do
have to speak in the House before very long, so I can't
be open-ended about it.
JOURNALIST: Sir, Mr Peacock says that an imbalance has been
created since your Government came to office. What's your
reaction to that?
That is not correct if it implies some deliberate
action on our part. The facts are very simple. That all
governments have had as the major criterion for determining
the level of immigration intake economic considerations.
That determines the absolute level that comes in. Within the
decisions that are made on that ground there are categories for
the intake of immigrants. Those include the occupational shortages
category, if I can put it that way, the business migration program,
the family reunion component and the refugee component. And
we made a decision in our first year of Government which was
our decision as to intakes that on economic grounds the total
level would be reduced somewhat. It was'. a maximum of 70,000).
That's the gross arrivals, in net terms it will be less than that.
Now we have followed the policies of the previous Governmentbecause
in Opposition we endorsed them. And that meant that
people that were already in Australia, irrespective of their
country of origin, had the rights in regard-to family reunion.
And because of the operation of that and continuation of that
non-discriminatory approach it has meant, as the Minister has
indicated, some relative increase of immigrants of Asian
origin. But I want to emphasise that has not been any deliberate
policy to change the ethnic composition of immigrants coming,
to this country, but merely reflects a continuation by this;
Government of what has been a bi-partisan approach.
JOURNALIST: Mr Peacock says that until there is a balance
restored between European and Asian migration then that
bi-partisanship will not exist.
Well just let me give you the figures of what's happened
over recent years in regard to the element of Asian refugee
intake. If I go back to the period when it started to increase / 2
P. M. cont.: significantly which was 78/ 79, I'll give you
the figures from 78/ 79 through. In 1978/ 79 the number of
Asian refugees was 12,000,-I'll round it off to the nearest
thousand 78/ 79: 12,000, 79/ 80: 15,000, 80/ 81: 16,000,
81/ 82: 15,000, 82/ 83: 13,000, and in our first year 83/ 84;
10,000. Now you can see the intake of refugees, which we..
let me say entirely endorsed at the time that it happened,
rose during that previous period,'. it is at a lower level in
83/ 84. And if the opposition are about a debate as to the
level of immigration into this country, and of course that's
a legitimate debate, it seems a strange way of trying to
get there but I can simply repeat what is the incontrovertible
truth and that is that having made a decision: as a Government
about a lower absolute level of immigration in 83/ 84, ther
the components within it, proportions within it, inevitably
follow if you are going to say that in respect of those
people who are here irrespective of their origin, that they
have the same rights in respect of family reunion. You seE!,
I'll just do a quick count of the period that I covered from
78/ 79, that's 12,000, 27,000, 43,000, 58,000, 71,000. 71,000
refugees have come in in that period from 78/ 79 throught to
82/ 83. Now Australians are not going to say in respect of
those people that they haven't got the same rights to exercise
in respect of family reunion and they were entitled to exercise
those rights. They have done that. And inevitably in those
circumstances it will,-reflect the marginal changes in composition
to which I've referred.
JOURNALIST: Mr Peacock has suggested an increase in European
immigration in total, to increase the total number of migrants
to fix the problem. What do you think of that?
He said to fix the problem? I don't accept the existence
of a problem, because what exists is the application by my
Government of the principles that have been followed
consistently by the previous Government and with . the support
of the Opposition. Now if Mr Peacock is arguing for an increase
in the level of immigration, that the level of immigration is
too high and that can be the only thing that the existing level
is too low and that we should have a higher level then that
is one thing. If he wants to debate that then, of course, that
is a legitimate debate. We simply made the decision in our
first year of office that given the level of unemployment that
we'd inherited where you had hundreds of thousands of Australians
who were unemployed, then it was not a sensible decision to
keep up such a high absolute level of immnigration that had
existed. And I believe that that is a policy and a decision
made last year which would be endorsed by the overwhelming
majority of Australians. Now if he wants to argue that there
should be a significantly higher level of immigration in total
in 84/ 85, well then that is legitimate. I would simply say
to you that in making a decision as to what the absolute le-,. 7e1
of immigration will be in 84/ 85 we will take that decision
on the grounds, the basis, that we did last year. Now what
figure that will come out at I can't say now. But we will
not deviate from the principles that we've followed. If yo-a're
/ 3
P. M. cant: talking about aproblen here weve got to make
it quite clear that if you're saying that there are too marty
Asians compared to non-Asians, to be saying that's the problem
and to meet that " problem", that you've got to bring in more
people from the non-Asian category and therefore get residually
an outcome in absolute terms, then he's entitled to put -that.
But I'm simply saying that we will make a decision about the
absolute level of intake on economic grounds. Once we've
said that we are rnot going to deny the people who have come
into this country under the policies of the previous Government,
which we endorsed, we are not going to deny to them the rights
of family reunion which apply to everyone.
JOURNALIST: If it's not your Government's policy to create
a change in the ethnic composition of the state of society
if it's not your policy if it is however the effect of
the principles on which your policy is based that there is ~ a
change in the ethnic composition of AuStralian society, does
that give you, or do you think that ought to give many
Australians cause for concern or regret?
PM: If what you were looking at: was a drastic change in the
composition, it may become a leqitimatE? area for discussion,
but, as you will see from the quote that I made in the
Parliament today, of what Mr. Peacock said I think it was
on 22 March he was saying himself that it is not right to talk
about Asianisation. He has acknowledgEd that and quite clearly
the dimensions that we are referring to in the total population
now of getting on for 15 million people you can't statistically
assert with any veracity that that situation exists.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Mr. West has said that one of the
reasons for the change in mix is a diminution from the European
and British Isles -people wanting to come over, but Mr. Peacock
produced figures -allegedly from the Department today saying
that that wasn't in fact the case. Will you look into that?
PM: Certainly I will look into that, but it still doesn't
divert from the basic points that I've been making that once
you've made a decision as to absolute levels and you remain
committed to the element and the rights of family reunion
concept then that must inevitably it is a statistical
inevitability that that will have an impact upon the composition
of your intake.
JOURNALIST: The figures you gave us a second ago were for a
percentage of refugee intakes from Asia. I-take it they don't
include family reunion intakes. Do you have those figures?
PM: I haven't got those in front of me, but no, those are
strictly the refugee figures, yes.
JOURNALIST: Sure, that's right, but I assume what we are tal~ king
about are the total intake.
PM: Yes, but I did say in my comments that if you look at the
aggregates of those that will obviously be reflected in your
family reunion figures.
JOURNALIST: I just wanted to make the point that following your
argument, which is obviously quite correct, it also becomes a
statistical certainty, that we will have a higher proportion of
Asians because of the very reasons you advance as you continue
with this policy.
PM: Well, what you have got to say is that as those that are
here and the numbers, as I've indicated, are declining that are
coming in under the refugee program -as they exercise the right
of family reunion then that is going -by definition, that is
going to diminish. So it is not possible to say at this stage,
Max, what the sort-of proportions will be over the next few
years other than to say that what you've got, really, looking at
the Australian situation now is that the people who have come
here from non-Asian sources over a longer period have probably
tended to exercise their family reunion rights earlier and that
is diminishing. You will have the same sort of thing happening
now with this much lower level of Asian immigration that they
are exercising their family reunion right now.
JOURNALIST: So there will be a lag for SOME! years.
PM: Lag to some extent.
JOURNALIST: What I'm suggesting is that you're facing in the
next few years this relative shift, as you described it, of
Asian intake or actual increase over the next few years of
PM: No, of course that depends, Max, on what decision is
tEaken about your aggregate level of immigration. See, it may
well be I'm not saying that this will be the case but it is
quite arguable for instance, that within a year or so's time
the economic situation may well be that your occupational
category component may increase, that you increase the
absolute level so that that mix will change. I'm simply making
the point you cannot
JOURNALIST: The family reunion, say, is what I was talking about.
PM: The family reunion side in respect of those people who
are already here, what you are saying is correct. Of course the
current situation, * as I repeat, reflects the fact that those who
have been here from non-Asian sources for some considerable
period of time have exercised the right.
JOURNALIST: If it's an issue now, it might become an even
greater issue in a few years time.
PM: Just in respect of that component, yes.
JOURNALIST: Sir, I have to go in a second, can I just ask'one
quick question.
PM: Let me make it clear, ladies and gentlemen, that we must
arrange this press question to suit your convenience, Laurie.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you believe that the Liberals and
the National Party are trying to whip this issue up as an
election issue the issue of Asian immigration?
PM: I'm not going to answer that question because what I was
concerned about in the House today and what I ' 11 be concerned
about in the House when I make my speech is not to try and make
this a partisan issue, to score points off anyone. What I'm
really concerned about, Laurie, is to try, to eliminate what is
potentially an ugly feature of the Australian scene, to try and
eliminate that from the political debate and I'm certainly,
therefore, not going to answer that question.
JOURNALIST: Is that why you asked the Opposition not
to appeal to, I think you described it as uninformed
emotions, and How do you think those uninformed emotions
might be manifested?
PM: I think all of us have seen some evidence by slogans on
walls and certain observations that have been made about
Asians. One point I will be making in my comments in the
House in a short period is that I have been associated now
for nearly 40 years publicly with the immigration program
and with trying to ensure that there is an elimination of
prejudices in this country. I will certainly also be making
the point that it is worth thinking about the fact, isn't it,
that there has been very prominent in our public life in the
last few weeks there is a person called Dr. Chang, who at
this moment is leading a team fighting to save the life of a
young Australian, Phiona. Now, I don't know where Dr. Chang's
antecedants are. I'm sure they are not in Gundagai or
Tullarook. Do you mind if I finish? And that man is
obviously of Asian origin. Now, he is an Australian and he is
doing a fantastic job within and for Australia and the strength
of this country over th& period since the war derives very
substantially from the fact that we are a country now composed
of people, who, I think were shown in the 1981 census have
people here from I think it is 92 countries of origin
and what as Prime Minister I am concerned. about is trying to
help Australians to understand that the strength of this country
very much derives from the fact that we have this very rich
diversification of source. We are a country of just over
million people and we live in a part of the world which is
going inevitably and inexorably into the future to be interwoven
with our fortunes and Australians must understand these things,
I believe and th ' e overwhelming majority of them do. What I'Im
concerned about today and into the future is to try and ensure!
that-as far as it is humanly possible we eliminate from the
face of public life ' in Australia this divisive issue and one
which is very dangerous potentially.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you think it a worthwhile
decision to have shut down the Big Brother movement in the
light of all this debate over the last couple of days?
PM: I don't in a sense want to debase the fundamental issues
that I'm addressing and hoping that Australians will address,
by building that up into an issue beyond its intrinsic importance.
I believe that the decision which was contemplated by the
previous Minister and which has been given effect to by this
Minister is an appropriate one.