TRANSCRIPT PRESS CONFERENCE AT TRAVELODGE HOTEL, PORT MORESBY 7
AUGUST 19847 7.30 P. M.
JOURNALIST: -PRIME MINISTER WHAT DID EP'ERGE OUT OF YOUR TALKS WITH MR
LANGE TODAY. THAT HE'S GOT A BIGGER APPETITE-THAN I HAVE. NO, WELL AS YOU
WILL APPRECIATE THEY WERE CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS AND I DON'T THINK
OU'D REALLY EXPECT ME TO GO INTO THE DETAILS. BUT LET ME REALLY
GIVE YOU THE OUTLINE. THE FIRST THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT I WAS
PUTTING TO DAVID OUR ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE AND BASIS OF THE
ANZUS ALLIANCE AS IT HAS DEVELOPED UNDER SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS IN
AUSTRALIA AND WHAT OUR POSITION WAS IN THE LIGHT OF HAVING ACHIEVED
FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW A TOTALLY SATISFACTORY RELATIONSHIP. HE PUT
TO ME THE POSITION AS HE SAW IT WITHIN NEW ZEALAND. AND I AS I'VE
MADE CLEAR, AND AS BILL HAYDEN HAS MADE CLEAR AS WELL, WE WERE NOT,
ACTING'AS EMISSARIES FOR THE UNITED STATES9 THAT'S FOR THE UNITED
STATES TO PUT ITS POSITION TO THE NEW ZEALANDERS. THEY-HAVE DONE
THAT. I WAS CONCERNED WITH PUTTING OUR POSITION AND HEARING MR
LANGE'S POSITION. NOW IT'S A MATTER FOR MR LANGE AND THE GOVERNMJENT
TO DETERMINE WHERE THEY GO ON IT. I HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF
HIS THINKING AND OF THE SITUATION WITH WHICH HE'S CONFRONTED THERE.
IT'S A MATTER FOR MR LANGE IN HIS CAPACITY BOTH AS PRIME MINISTER
AND FOREIGN MINISTER TO WORK THIS THING THROUGH. AND THERE'S NO
ADVANTAGE OR VALUE FOR ANYONEs CERTAINLY FOR AUSTRALIAi IN
SPECULATING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS NOW. IT'S REALLY IN NEW ZEALAND'S
COURT. IT WOULD BE QUITE ZMPROPER FOR US TO BE SEEKING TO IMPOSE
POSITIONS. WE WOULD NOT APPRECIATE IT IF THE ROLES WERE REVERSED1 17
(.;' HERE WAS SOME ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE A VIEW UPON US.
JOURNALIST: MR LANGE'S TOLD THE NEW ZEAL. AND PRESS AFTER THE
BREAKFAST THIS MORNING THAT THE MAJOR EXERCISE S3CHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY
INVOLVING AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND AND AMERICAN NAVAL VESSELS SEEMS
THREATENED. IF THAT EXERCISE DOESN'T GO AHEAD WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT
ANZUS IS SHAKY.
WELL I DON'T THINK IT'S USEFUL SPE: CULATING. ABOUT THAT
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION AND YOU KNOW THAT NORMALLY I DON'T LIKE
DEALING WITH HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS. BUT EVEN MORE SO IN THIS CASE
/ 2
BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE WHAT BY ANY CRITERIA YOU LIKE TO CHOOSE A
DELICATE SITUATION IN WHICH A TREATY RELATIONSHIP WHICH HAS EXISTED
FOR THIRTY YEARS IS IN OUESTION TO SOME EXTENT CERTAIN IMPORTANT
ASPECTS OF IT ARE IN QUESTION WITHIN ONE COUNTRY, IN NEW ZEALAND.
NOW IT'S OBVIOUSLY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF US THAT NOTHING BE DONE
NOW WHICH MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE PROCESSES WITHIN NEW
ZEALAND TO BE WORKED OUT WITHIN NEW ZEALAND. ANY ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE
PRESSURES FROM OUTSIDE I BELIEVE WOULD BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE AND SO
FOR ME TO SAY WHAT WOULD BE THE SITUATION IF AS YOU COME UP TO
FEBRUARY OF NEXT YEAR THERE WAS AN INCAPACITY TO HOLD THE EXERCISES
AS PLANNED, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HELPFUL. WE WILL, AS FAR AS
AUSTRALIA IS CONCERNED, WE CAME TO GOVERNMENT AND MADE IT CLEAR THA"
WE WANTED TO LOOK AT ANZUS. THE AMERICANS WERE FULLY CO-OPERATIVE
WITH US IN FACIL-I'TATING THAT REVIEW IN WH/ CH BOTH THE RELEVANT
MINISTERS SCHOLES AND HAYDEN WERE INVOLVED., AND OUR DEFENCE FORCE
ELEMENTS WERE INVOLVED. NOW WE ARE SATISFIED COMPLETELY WITH THAT
REVIEW AND OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE TREATY TO OUR FORE-SEEABLE
REQUIREMENTS. NOW WE'VE DONE OUR JOB THEREFORE. NOW THERE'S A NEW
SOVERNMENT IN NEW ZEALAND, THEY'VE GOT TO DO THEIR OWN EXERCISE. I
CAN DO NO MORE RESPONSIBLY THAN PUT CLEARLY TO MR LANGE, AS I HAVE
DONE, OUR VIEW OF THE SITUATION. WE'VE DONE THAT. NOW IT'S BACK IN
THEIR COURT. AND TO SPECULATE, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AVOIDING YOUR
UESTION, BUT TO SPECULATE ON HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS WOULD NOT ONLY
I BELIEVE BE UNHELPFUL TO MR LANGE IN HIS DELIBERATIONS IN NEW
ZEALAND, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE IN AUSTRALIA'S INTERESTS OR IN THE UNITED
STATES' INTERESTS.
JOURNALIST: WELL THE NEW ZEALANDERS SEEM TO HAVE TAKEN A POSITION
BEFORE THEY HAVE CONDUCTED A REVIEW.
WELL THEY HAVE CERTAINLY PUT PUBLICLY A VIEW AS THEY SEE IT
ABOUT CERTAIN ELEMENTS THAT IS, OF THE NON-VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND
3ORTS OF NUCLEAR POWERED OR NUCLEAR ARMED VESSELS. NOW THEY'VE PUT
tHE VIEW PUBLICLY. NOW IT'S FOR THEM TO CONDUCT THEIR DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE UNITED STATES AND I GUESS THEY'LL DO THAT. THEY HAVE TO
THINK OF ALL THE ASPECTS OF THIS MATTER. IT'S FOR THEM.
, JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION
TODAY DOES IT GIVE YOU ANY CONCERN AS PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF ANZUS OR OUR ROLE IN THAT ALLIANCE.
WELL I BELIEVE, AND WE'VE MADE THIS CLEAR BEFORE9 I BELIEVE
THAT IF THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH A MUTUALLY
ACCEPTABLE ACCOMMODATION WITH THE UNITED STATES ON THE ISSUES WHICH
ARE IN QUESTION NOW AT THE FOREFRONT THEN IT REQUIRES
REAPPRAISALS. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IT'S NOT USEFUL TO US9 TO
NEW ZEALAND OR THE UNITED STATES TO SPECULATE ABOUT THOSE
REAPPRAISALS NOW. CLEARLY A REAPPRAISAL WOULD BE INVOLVED.
JOURNALIST: MR HAWKE WOULD YOU PREFER TO RESHAPE ANZUS THAT WOULD
PERHAPS BE LESS OF A COMMITMENT FOR THE PARTICIPANTS, OR WOULD YOU
PREFER AN ANZUS AS IT EXISTS TODAY, BUT PERHAPS A PACT BETWEEN JUST
AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES.
NO. WE HAVE MADE THE JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE SORT OF ANZUS WHICH
S APPROPRIATE FOR AUSTRALIA. WE'VE MADE THAT JUDGEMENT AND NOTHING
HAS CHANGED TO MAKE ME OR THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVE THAT THAT APPRAISAL.
THAT WE'VE MADE ABOUT WHAT'S IN AUSTRALIA'S BEST INTERESTS SHOULD BE
CHANGED.
JOURNALIST: DOES REPPRAISAL MEAN THAT AUSTRALIA HAS EXPLORED THE
POSSIBILITY OF SOME BILATERAL ARRANGEMENT EXCLUDING NEW ZEALAND?
/ 3
1
P. M1.: NO. IT WOULD BE A TOTAL CONTRADICTION OF WHAT I'VE JUST SAID.
WHY SHOULD WE BE GOING DOWN THAT PATH WHILE NEW ZEALAND ITSELF HAS
GOT TO CONSIDER ITS POSITION. IT WILL BE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
UNITED STATES AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE
UNITED STATES. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THAT AND WE'RE SATISFIED WITH THE
? RESENT POSITION. NOW ANOTHER PARTY NEW ZEALAND HAS GOT TO
CONDUCT ITS DISCUSSIONS AND IT WOULD BE QUITE FUTILE AND COUNTER-
1RODUCTIVE FOR ME ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTRALIAN-GOVERNMENT TO BE GOING
DOWN SOME SPECULATIVE HYPOTHETICAL PATH WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT AT THE
MOMENT. JOURNALIST: IS THAT THE END OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH MR LANGE ON
THAT QUESTION OR DO YOU INTEND TO HAVE FURTHER DIALOGUE WITH HIM?
WE'LL BE TOGETHER AGAIN BEFORE WE LEAVE. I'M LEAVING ON
THURSDAY MORNING. I THINK HE'S NOT LEAVI'NG UNTIL FRIDAY. IT MAY BE
THAT SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION WILL OCCUR BETWEEN US9 BUT WE'VE GOT NO
F: ORMAL MEETING SCHEDULED.
JOURNALIST: DID MR LANGE PERHAPS ASK YOU WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN HIS
P LACE? WELL I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD START TO WHAT I THINK
'~ WILL BE A LONG RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO LABOR GOVERNMENTS ACROSS
THE TASMAN IF I WERE To GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE CONVERSATIONS.
JOURNALIST: MR HAWKE DID MR LANGE SAY TO YOU THAT EVEN IF HE WANTED
ro CHANGE THAT POLICY NOW HE WOULD HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY BECAUSE OF
* rHE STRONG ANTI-NUCLEAR SENTIMENTS WITHIN HIS PARTY.
I GIVE THE SAME ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION THAT I GAVE BEFORE.
I'M NOT GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF THE CONVERSATION.
JOURNALIST: IT WOULD SEEM SENSIBLE MR HAWKE GIVEN THE PROBLEMS OF
ANZUS AT THE MOMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENTv YOUR GOVERNMENT, EMBARKED
UPON CONTINGENCY PLANS PRIOR-TO ANY AGREEMENT ON EITHER ELEMENT
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATED AND NEW ZEALAND. IS THAT GOVERNMENT
WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM AT THE MOMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM?
WE DON'T NEED TO GO INTO ANY CONTINGENCY PLANNING. THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OURSELVES AND THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN WORKED
SOUT. I WOULD CONCUR WITH THE OBSERVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY
\.. OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATIONi INCLUDING MR SCHULTZ, 9
ABOUT THE HIGH STANDING AND QUALITY OF THAT RELATIONSHIP. IT IS IN
EXCELLENT SHAPE AND WE ARE NOT IN ANY NEED To REVIEW IT.
JOURNALIST: COULD ANZUS WORK IF AUSTRALIA DENIED ACCESS TO ITS
PORTS AND FACILITIES BY U. S. NUCLEAR ARMED OR POWERED WARSHIPS OR
AIRCRAFT. WELL THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION WHICH IS ABSURD BECAUSE
WE ' VE MADE OUR DECISION ABOUT-THAT. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S
LIKE ASKING ME A QUESTION LIKE WOULD THE DEFENCE POSITION OF THE
UNITED STATES BE THE SAME IF IT WAS GOING TO ABANDON THE NUCLEAR
DETERRENT. JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER YOU SAID EARLIER THAT YOU NOW HAVE A
CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF MR LANGE'S POSITION OF A SITUATION WITH
14HICH HE WAS CONFRONTED. WHAT DO YOU KNOW NOW THAT YOU DIDN'T
KNOW BEFORE. S
WELL HE'S GIVEN ME AN EXPOSITION OF7 THE RANGE OF
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE INVOLVED. I HADN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF
HAVING THAT EXPOSITION BEFORE.
JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INDONESIANS
OR MR SOMARE HAS THE REPATRIATION ISSUE ARISEN?
YES I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM BOTH AND I'M SATISFIED THAT
AS BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND INDONESIA
THAT THEY HAVE REACHED BASICALLY A SATISFACTORY FOUNDATION FOR
RESOLVING THE MATTER OF THE BORDER CROSSERS. I'VE MADE THE POSITION
OLITE CLEAR FROM AN EARLY POINT AS HAS BILL HAYDEN THAT THESE ARE TWO
SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATIONS. AND WE'VE GOT TO GET OUT OF OUR
ATTITUDE IN AUSTRALIA THAT IN SOME IMPLICIT SENSE, PEOPLE DON'T SAY
IT EXPLICITLY, BUr THEY' RE STILL IMPLICIT IN OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THIS
THAT PAPUA NEW GUINEA IS SOMETHING LESS THAN AN 2NDEPENDENT NATION
BECAUSE OF OUR PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP. THAT'S IN THE PAST. PAPUA NEW
GUINEA IS A SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATIONr IT IS AN ISSUE WHICH HAS
TO BE RESOLVED WITH ANOTHER SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATION. AND ON MY
JUDGEMENT THOSE TWO SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATIONS ARE DOING A FIRST
CLASS JOB AT RESOLVING THAT ISSUE IN AN AMICABLE CONSTRUCTIVE WAY.
OURNALIST: THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION OF A FUTURE AUSTRALIAN ROLE?
NO, WHY SHOULD THERE BE. JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A GEOGRAPHICAL
PROXIMITY TO THEM THAT DOESN'T DIMINISH THEIR SOVEREIGNTY OR INCREASE
OUR RIGHT TO INTRUDE IN MATTERS BETWEEN THEM. AND PEOPLE MUST
UNDERSTAND THAT.
JOURNALIST: HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THE ABC ISSUE WITH MR SOMARE.
WE HAD A PASSING REFERENCE TO THE ABC9 YES. AND I WOULD
IMAGINE THAT BEFORE I LEAVE I MIGHT HAVE A BIT MORE DISCUSSION. BUT
WE HAVEN'T GONE TO IT IN DEPTH. BUT THERE'S NO SUGGESTION THAT
YOJ'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO LEAVE BEFORE WE GO ON THURSDAY9 BARRIE,
AS FAR AS I KNOW ANYWAY.
JOURNALIST: DID YOUR TALKS WITH MR LANGE ON THE ANZUS ISSUE REVEAL
TO YOU OR MAKE YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND OR'
REALISE OR KNOW BEFORE.
THERE WERE SOME NUANCES OF THE POSITION IN NEW ZEALAND.
JOURNALIST: WHAT WERE THEY?
CAN I JUST KEEP GOING? I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE DETAILS OF OUR
CONVERSATION.
JOURNALIST: DO YOU THINK THAT THE-TRIAD EXERCISE SHOULD GO AHEAD
MR HAWKE IN THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES?
P. M1.-WELL WE'VE GOT TO OPERATE FROM THE BASIS THAT WE ARE IN AN
ANZUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES AND NEW ZEALAND AND THAT
THE PLANNING THAT IS DONE UNDER THAT SHOULD PROCEED*. NOW WE WILL
OBVIOUSLY GO AHEAD AT THIS STAGE ON THAT BASIS. NOW IF AS A RESULT
OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND AND THE UNITED STATES IT EMERGES
THAT IT MAY HAVE TO BE REVIEWED, THEN AS I'VE SAID BEFORE THAT'S THE
TIME TO ADDRESS YOURSELF To THAT ISSUE.
JOURNALIST: IN YOUR TALKS WITH MR RUSTAN, WHO AS HOME AFFAIRS
MINISTER PRESUMABLY IS IN CHARGE OF THE TRANSMIGRATION PROGRAM AND
ALSO THE LOCAL OFFICIALS IN IRIAN JAYA, DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE
REPATRIATION OF THE REFUGEES AND THEIR STATUS WHEN THEY GO BACK AND
THAT SORT OF THING?
WELL I DID DISCUSS WITH HIM THE STATUS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
2-ETWEEN HIS COUNTRY AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA. AND AS I SAID IN ANSWER
AN EARLIER QUESTION THAT CONFIRMED THE IMPRESSION THAT I HAD FROM THE
PRIME MINISTER OF THIS COUNTRY THAT A SATISFACTORY BASIS WAS EVOLVING
FOR ' THE RETURN OF THE BORDER CROSSERS. AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THAT
MATTER WILL BE RESOLVED SATISFACTORILY BETWEEN THEM.
JOURNALIST: WAS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON WHY THE INDONESIAN
MINISTER ASKED TO-SEE YOU.
NO, I THINK THAT HE REGARDED IT At A VER~ Y USEFUL OPPORTUNITY
TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS. HE'D TALKED WITH PRESIDENT. SUHARTO BEFORE HE,!)
LEFT AND HE WANTED TO CONVEY TO ME THE-GOOD WISHES OF THE PRESIDENT)
WHICH HE DIDi AND I RECIPROCATED. AND WE HAD A USEFUL DISCUSSION
ABOUT RELATIONS BETWEEN OUR TWO COUNTRIES AND AS I SAY OF THIS ISSUE
BETWEEN INDONESIA AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA.
JOURNALIST: DID ANYTHING ELSE COME UP?
NO, BASICALLY THE ISSUES THAT WERE COVERED WERE OUR BILATERAL
RELATIONS. SECONDLY, THE uUESTION OF THE BORD ER CROSSERS INTO OAPUAN
NEW GUINEA AND THIRDLY HE DID OUTLINE TO ME IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL
THEIR POLICY IN REGARD TO TRANSMIGRATION WITHIN HIS COUNTRY GENERALLY
AND PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO IRIAN JAYA.
JOURNALIST: DID YOU DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF IN4TELLIGENCE SHARING
WITH MR SOMARE AT ALL.
NO.
JOURNALIST: IS THERE ANY PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA OBTAINING INTELLIGENCE
FROM PAPUA NEW GUINEA.
OUR RELATIONS IN THIS AND IN ALL OTHER FIELDS ARE tX-CELLENT.