' N
TRANSCRIPT OF PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON 7 February 1985
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE A
NUMBER OF QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ADDRESS TO ME SO I WILL TAKE UP ONLY
AS SMALL AMOUNT OF YOUR TIME BY AN OPENING STATEMENT. I WANT TO SAY
THAT I AND MY PARTY HAVE ENJOYED AND FOUND BENEFICIAL THIS VISIT TO.
WASHINGTON. IT GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY IN RENEWING CONTACTS NOT
ONLY WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BUT THE SIGNIFICANT
MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. IT HAS GIVEN US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DISCUSS A WIDE RANGE OF MATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST. WHILE NATURALLY
ENOUGH THE EMPHASIS AS FAR AS THE MEDIA IS CONCERNED HAS BEEN UPON
WHAT I MIGHT BROADLY TERM SECURITY MATTERS, THERE HAS OF COURSE BEEN
SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSIONS IN OTHER AREAS. IN THE AREA OF SECURITY, I
THINK YOU ARE AWARE OF THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN. JOINT
STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHULTZ AND MYSELF
AND THE STATEMENT I MADE EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON AT THE END OF MY
MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE I BELIEVE THEY ARE VERY CLEAR STATE
THE POSITION ON WHICH WE HAVE AGREED ON MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE IN THAT
AREA.
SIN OTHER AREAS OF IMPORTANCE TO US, WE HAVE OF COURSE DISCUSSED THE
ECONOMIC POSITION IN OUR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. WE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED
THE SIGNIFICANT GROWTH THAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE UNITED STATES
AND IN AUSTRALIA, AS A RESULT OF THE POLICIES THAT UNILATERALLY WE
HAVE EFFECTIVELY PURSUED. I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY OF POINTING OUT THE
THE PRESIDENT AND TO MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION THE IMPORTANCE OF
A FLOURISHING, VIGOROUSLY, GROWING UNITED STATES ECONOMY AND WE TAKE
REASSURANCE FROM THEIR BELIEF THAT 1985 WILL CONTINUE TO BE A YEAR OF
SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH. AND THAT IS OF COURSE IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES., THAT IT HAS A BROAD SIGNIFICANCE FOR
THE REST OF THE WORLD, NOT LEAST . OF ALL FOR OUR COUNTRY.
WHILE TALKING OF MATTERS ECONOMIC, LET ME SAY THAT I WAS ABLEI'. WITH..
MY COLLEAGUES, TO HAVE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS WITH REGARD TO A NUMBER
OF PARTICULAR MATTERS IN THE ECONOMIC AREA. I-TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY
OF EXPRESSING OUR SATISFACTION AND INDICATION OF WHAT THE
ADMINISTRATION INTENDED IN RESPECT OF THE 1985 FARM BILLS. WHAT THEY.""
INTEND TO DO THERE AUGURS WELL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL
PRINCIPALS IN BOTH INTERNATIONAL MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURAL P. RODUCTS,.'.
AND IT FITS CONSISTENTLY WITH THE BALANCE AND DECISIONS WE PUT ON
0 2
WPH59708
. iNDAY ? USSELS TO THE EURO) PEAN COMMISSION. I EMPHASIZED TO THE
' RESIDENT AND TO RELUCTANT MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION THE GREAT
1.1PORTANCE THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ATTACHES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
AN iNTER-JATTIONAL TRADERS REGIME BASED ON THE PRINCIPALS OF
i. ULTILATERALISM AND LIBERAL PRACTICES IN THE AREA OF INTERNATIONAL
TRADE. MY COUNTRY DEPENDS VERY SUBSTANTIALLY UPON THE EMERGENCE AND
FLOURISHING OF SUCH PRINCIPLES. OUR GREAT AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES
HAVE SUFFERED FROM THE ABSENCE OF THOSE PRINCIPLES IN RECENT YEARS
AND WE TAKE COMFORT FROM THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
ADMINISTRATION SHARE OUR COMMITMENT TO THOSE PRINCIPLES AND WILL JOIN
WITH US IN SEEKING TO HAVE ESTABLISHED A NEW MULTILATERAL TRADE
RO) U N D.
WITHIN THAT CONTEXT I EMPHASIZED TO THE PRESIDENT THE POTENTIAL
DIFFICULTIES THAT WE SEE IN THE EMERGENCE OF EUROPE, BILATERALISM,
SPECIFICALLY THERE AND WE PRESS OUR CONCERN THAT TRADE IN THE AREA
PARTICULARLY OF COURSE BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES THAT THERE
SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED AGREEMENTS FOR THE SALE OF COAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES ON NON-COMPETITIVE TERMS. AND MAY I ALSO SAY THAT ON A
PARTICULAR MATTER OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA THAT IT IS
A MATTER OF CONSIDERABLE PLEASURE FOR ME THAT THE PRESIDENT INDICATED
T: -E IMPORTANCE THAT HE AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTACHES TO BI-CENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS WHICH WILL BE UNDERTAKEN IN
AUSTRALIA IN 4988. IT IS A MATTER OF COMFORT TO US AND PLEASURE THAT
" fHE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED THAT THERE WILL BE A SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT
BY THE UNITED STATES IN THOSE CELEBRATIONS AT THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
AND OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. LET ME THEN COMPLETE THIS STATEMENT BY
BRIEFLY GOING TO THE SECURITY ISSUES.
A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE SHULTZ AND
MYSELF HAVE MADE CLEAR-THE SHARED PERSPECTIVES THAT WE HAVE AND THE
REASON FOR THE DECISION MUTUALLY ARRIVED AT IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION
OF MX TESTS. ON THE ISSUE OF ANZUS I MADE IT CLEAR TO THE PRESIDENT
AND AGAIN TO ALL RELEVANT MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT REMAINS IN AN UNDIMINISHED WAY COMMITTED TO THE
ANZUS TREATY WITH CONTINUED ACCEPTANCE ON. BOTH OUR PARTS OF THE
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WHICH HAVE OPERATED ' AND, AS FAR AS WE ARE
CONCERNED, WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THAT TREATY INTO THE
FUTURE. WITH THAT SHORT INTRODUCTION LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM
AVAILABLE FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.
QUESTION: MR HAWKE, DO YOU ENDORSE THE U. S. STRATEGIC MODERNISATION
PROGRAM AND IF NOT WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT
WITH MR SHULTZ YESTERDAY WHICH STATED THAT BOTH SIDES AGREED THAT THE
SMC WAS DIRECTED FURTHER IN NUCLEAR DETERRENCE THAN HELPING NUCLEAR
ARMS CONTROL?
ANSWER: I AM AWARE OF THE APPARENT DIFFICULTY SOME HAVE HAD IN
INTERPRETING THAT WE HAVE A FAIR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT STATEMENT AND
I AM ASSISTED IN WHAT I SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, BY THE
INFORMATION I HAVE THAT A SENIOR OFFICIAL IN THE UNITED STATES
ADMINISTRATION EARLIER TODAY HAS MADE CLEAR THE POSITION THAT IT IS
INVOLVED IN THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH. BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT HE
SAID THAT IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE PROPER TARGETTING OF PARAGRAPH 2
THE POSITION IS QUITE CLEAR. WHAT WE ARE SAYING, AND WHILE THAT MAY
PRODUCE SMILES, THE FACTS ARE NEVERTHELESS THERE AND UNDISPUTABLE.
WHAT IS SAID IS THAT WE MET AND RENEWED OUR CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS
CONCERNING TWO THINGS STRATEGIC DETERRENCE AND MUTUAL EFFORTS TO
ACHIEVE NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION. WE AGREED ON THE IMPORTANCE OF BOTH
OF THESE KEY OBJECTIVES. THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT WE EXPRESSED THEN
AND IT WAS A REFLECTION OF A CONTINUING REALITY AS FAR AS OUR GOVERNMENT
IS CONCERNED. THE PARAGRAPH GOES ON TO SAY THAT AS FAR AS THE
WH59708
LJJITED STATES IS CONCERNED THEIR STRATEGIC MODERNISATION PROGRAM HAS
PEN DIRE'CTED TOWARDS THOSE ENDS. THE STATEMENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN
ENDORSEMENT BY MY GOVERNMENT OF STRATEGIC MODERNISATION PROGRAMS,
EITHER COLLECTIVELY, OR IN RESPECT OF ANY OF ITS INDIVIDUAL PARTS.
IHOSE THINGS ARE A MATTER FOR THE UNITED STATES. THE POSITION MY
GOVERNMENT IS QUITE CLEAR AND HAS BEEN FROM THE TIME WE CAME TO
OFFICE. WE HAVE A COMMITTMENT TO THE CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC
DETERRENCE. IT MAY NOT BE IDEAL, INDEED IT IS NOT. THE ONLY THING
1T HAS IN ITS FAVOUR IS THAT IN THIS TROUBLED WORLD, SINCE THE END OF
I! E LAST WAR, IT HAS OPERATED TO PREVENT THE EMERGENCE OF A NUCLEAR
h:-OJCAUST. MY GOVERNMENT TAKES THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT THE MOST
SATISFACTORY METHOD OF CONDUCTING RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SUPER POWERS,
WHICH IS NOT ONLY A MATTER FOR THEM BUT WHICH IS A MATTER OF
FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO MOST PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. AND IT IS FOR
THAT REASON, AS WELL AS SUPPORTING THE CONCEPTS OF STRATEGIC
DETERRENCE, WE ARE PLAYING A PART IN IT SUBSTANTIALLY BY THE
PROVISION OF JOINT FACILITIES IN AUSTRALIA. BUT THEN IN ADDITION TO
THATt MY GOVERNMENT IN THE TIME ITS COME TO OFFICE, HAS TAKEN THE
VIEW THAT WE MUST USE ALL OUR BEST ENDEAVOURS TO TRY AND CREATE IN
THIS WORLD A SANER METHOD OF PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSBETWEEN THE SUPER P
POWERS. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ATTACHED THE MOST PROFOUND IMPORTANCE
TO INITIATIVES ON A WHOLE RANGE OF AREAS TO TRY AND WORK TOWARDS A
SITUATION OF REDUCED LEVELS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WORKING ULTIMATELY
TOWARDS THEIR ELIMINATION. NOW, I HOPE I'VE MADE IT CLEAR, I CAN'T
MAKE IT ANY CLEARER, THAT THE STATEMENT WHICH WAS MADE GOES TO A
QUESTION OF SHARED OBJECTIVES, WHICH ARE MENTIONED AND THE STATEMENT
DOES NOT, NOR HAS IT BEEN TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, TO
MEAN AN ENDORSEMENT BY MY GOVERNMENT OF THE STRATEGIC MODERNISATION
PROGRAMS.
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTER, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE BEST COURSE TO BE
TAKEN WITH YOUR COLLEAGUE MR LANGE, TO TRY TO PURSUADE HIM TO CHANGE
HIS MIND OR JUST DROP IT, AND DROP NEW ZEALAND PERHAPS FROM ANZUS?
ANSWER: I KNOW THAT THIS IS AN AREA WHICH W. ILL BE A MATTER OF
CONSIDERABLE CONCERN TO ALL . OF YOU SO PERHAPS I COULD GO INTO IT IN
SOME DETAIL AND IT MAY SATISFY A RANGE OF QUESTIONS WHICH MAY BE IN
YOUR MIND. WE'VE MADE IT CLEAR FROM THE TIME OF THE ELECTIONS OF THE
NEW GOVERNMENT IN NEW ZEALAND THAT WHAT NEW ZEALAND DECIDES IN THIS
AREA OR INDEED IN ANY OTHER MATTER IS A DECISION FOR A SOVEREIGN AND
INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND. I MADE THAT CLEAR TO MR LANGE
WHEN WE FIRST MET IN PORT MORESBY IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR. WE HAVE
MADE IT CLEAR DIRECTLY, BY CORRESPONDENCE, THE POSITION OF THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR BOTH TO MR LANGE AND TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WE ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS
OF HAVING ONCE CONVEYED OUR POSITION OF SEEKING TO BRING PRESSURE ON
THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND TO INFLUENCE ITS DECISIONS. WE WOULD
NOT APPRECIATE ANY ATTEMPT THAT WAS MADE UPON US EITHER BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND OR ANYONE ELSE TO TELL US WHAT OUR POSITION
SHOULD BE. WE RESPECT AND FOLLOW THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS FAR AS NEW
ZEALAND IS CONCERNED. WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS, THAT AS FAR AS THE
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA IS CONCERNED, THAT THE ANZUS TREATY REMAINS
OPERATIVE BETWEEN US, AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES, AND WE WILL
CONTINUE ITS OPERATION IN TERMS OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THAT TREATY. IT IS NOT OUR WISH OR INTENTION
TO WREAK ANY VENGEANCE UPON NEW ZEALAND AND I AM COMFORTED BY THE
CLEAR STATEMENT THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES
ADMINISTRATION, FROM THE PRESIDENT DOWN, AND INCLUDING SECRETARY
SHULTZ, THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT STILL REGARDS NEW ZEALAND
AND THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND AS FRIENDS OF THE UNITED STATES. I
ONLY HOPE THAT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE, THAT IS AUSTRALIA AND THE
UNITED STATES, WILL CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF ANZUS. WE CAN ONLY
./ 4
WH59708
IOPE THAT WITH FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER THE GOVERNMENT OF
NEW ZEALAND MAY SEE SOME WISDOM IN ADOPTING A NEW POSITION. BUT WE
WILL DOy NO-THING BY WAY OF PRESSURE TO TRY AND PRODUCE THAT RESULT.
THoEAT IS A MATTER FOR NEW ZEALAND.
1 UESTION: PRIME MINSITER, ON THAT POINT IT HAS BEEN SAID REPEATEDLY
THAT NEW ZEALAND IS NOT ACTING OUT ITS ROLE AS AN ALLY. HAS THERE
BEEN ANY TALK AT ALL IN TERMS OF AUSTRALIA TRYING, EITHER IN AN
OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES THAT WOULD
EXCLUDE NEW ZEALAND?
ANSWER: NO, NOT AT ALL, AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT. BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT IN A POSITION OF TALKING ABOUT SUSPENDING THE TREATY OR
ABANDONING THE ANZUS TREATY. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA REGARD THE ANZUS TREATY AS REMAINING IN
EXISTENCE AND OPERATIVE IN ITS FULL IMPLICATIONS BETWEEN US AND WE
WILL CONTINUE ALL THE THINGS UNDER THAT TREATY AS WE HAVE IN THE
PAST. AND THAT MEANS, WITHOUT BEING EXHAUSTIVE ABOUT IT, IT MEANS
THE UNDERTAKING OF JOINT EXERCISES, IT MEANS THE SHARING
INTELLIGENCE, IT MEANS THE MAKING AVAILABLE OF FACILITIES WITHIN
AUSTRALIA FOR VISITING SHIPS OF THE UNITED STATES. NOW THOSE THINGS
HAVE BEEN DONE UNDER THE ANZUS TREATY AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE DONE.
THERE IS NO QUESTION AND IS NO NEED TO CONTEMPLATE THE CREATION OF
ANOTHER TREATY.
QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND NEW
ZEALAND?
ANSWER: WELLL ITS CHANGED IN THIS RESPECT PAUL, THAT, NAVAL
EXERCISES WON'T BE HELD WHILE THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND ADHERES
TO ITS POSITION. THERE WONT BE THOSE TRI-LATERAL EXERCISES. BUT WE
HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN
PARTICULAR THE FACT, THAT WE GLADLY AND A WITH RATIONAL* ACCEPTANCE OF
THE SITUATION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH WE OPERATE, THE
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND IN THE AREA OF MILITARY COOPERATION. WE
SHARE A RESPONSIBILITY, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND IN. A REGION OF* THE
WORLD WHICH IS WITNESSING SOME DEGREE OF RELATIVE INSTABILITY
COMPARED TO RECENT TIMES, AND I REFER, OF COURSE, TO DEVELOPEMNTS IN
NEW CALEDONIA. IT COULD IN NO WAY BE IN THE INTERESTS EITHER OF
AUSTRALIA OR OF NEW ZEALAND OR OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATE
WERE WE TO CEASE EXERCISES AND RELATIONSWITH THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW
ZEALAND NOR WILL WE.
QUESTION: INAUDIBLE CAN I JUST FOLLOW THAT UP IS AUSTRALIA STILL
REGARD NEW ZEALAND AS INAUDIBLE
ANSWER: WELL I THINK THE ACCURATE WAY OF PUTTING IT IS THIS, IT GOES
BACK TO THE ANSWER I'VE GIVEN BEFORE. WE REGARD THE ANZUS TREATY AS
REMAINING IN OPERATION. ITS NOT CANCELLED IN REGARD TO NEW ZEALAND.
NEW ZEALAND, AUTONOMOUSLYi AND AS IT IS ENTITLED TO DO, HAS MADE A
DECISION WHICH HAS MEANT THAT HITHERTO NORMAL OPERATIONS OF THE
TREATY WOULD NOT OPERATE. BUT THE POSITION IS BEING LEFT SO THAT THE
TREATY IS NO WAY CHANGED AND IF THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND WERE TO
CHANGE ITS POSITION, AND SAY WE WANT TO'RESUME NORMAL OPERATIONS,
THEN NOTHING WILL HAVE BEEN DONE, EITHER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF AUSTRALIA, TO PREVENT THAT HAPPENING
QUESTION: MR PRIME MINISTER INAUDIBLE
PRIME MINISTER: I THOUGHT YOU WERE DIRECTING PROCEEDINGS THEN,
SORRY.
W 7. 8
I. c. . T ZEA; AND S x Tf-E D(' G-HCOUS' AND AUSTRALIA
0T l'OP WHAT S2EC7C TYPE OF CENEFITS DO YOU EXPECT AUSTRALIA TO
UFC EXAMFLE MIG T IT GET THE AMERICAN ANTARTIC BASE IN
C*-; R2STC* URCH?
ER: WELL YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU START TO TALK ABOUT DOG-HOUSES IT
J%_ INGS EACK MEMORIES, AND I REJECT YOUR ANALYSE, AND WE CERTAINLY
> ThT SEEK TO DERIVE FOR AUSTRALIA ANY RESIDUAL BENEFITS FROM THE
': TCISON THATS EEEN TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND. THAT'S
" HE WAY WE OPERATE AND WE WOULDN'T INTEND TO. WE REGARD NEW
? KALAN[) AS A FRIEND, AND IT'S NOT THE ACTION OF A FRIEND TO TRY AND
,: T7RVE ADVANTAGE FROM A TEMPORARY DIFFICULTY OR IMPASSE WITH WHICH A
I S TNVO rVED.
OJESTION: PRIME MINISTER, COMING BACK TO STRATEGIC DEFENCE DID YOU
;,' ECEIVE AN ASSURANCE FROM SECRETARY WWINBERGER THAT THE UNITED STATES
VOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO INCLUDE ITS FACILITIES IN AUSTRALIA IN THE SDI.
ANSWER: INDEED. I RAISED THE QUESTION WITH WEINBERGER. WE HAVE
AREADY BEEN GIBEN THE UNQUALIFIED ASSURANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES THAT NONE OF THE Jñ iN FACILITIES HAVE ANY ROLE IN THE
RISEARCH UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE. WE HAD
ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THAT ASSURANCE AND IN LIGHT OF THE CURRENT
SITUATION I SOUGHT FROM AND OBTAINED FROM MR WEINBERGER UNQUALIFED
ASSURANCE THAT CONTINUES TO BE THE POSITION.
QUESTION: INAUDIBLE UNITED STATES AS YOU KNOW, HAS SAID HE PLANS
IHE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION. DO YOU THINK IT POSSIBLE THAT THE
INAUDIBLE QUESTION ASKED IF THE SECOND REVOLUTION WOULD LEAD TO A NEW
MOVEMENT OF POPULATION FROM THE U. S. TO AUSTRALIA.-
ANSWER MOVE OF THE POPULATION FROM THE. UNITED STATES TO AUSTRALIA?
WELL, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THE CITIZENS OF-THE UNITED STATES WHO I
CAN THINK OF WHO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IN AUSTRALIA AND INDEED OVER
RECENT YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A RELATIVE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SEEKING TO IMMIGRATE TO AUSTRALIA. WE
WELCOME THAT AND WITHIN OUR NON-DISCRIMINATORY IMMIGRATION PROGRAMME
THAT IS CURRENTLY RUNNING AT THE ORDER OF ABOUT 70,000 PER YEAR,
THERE IS ROOM THERE FOR PEOPLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. THERE IS NO
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITH WHICH WE HAVE A WARMER RELATIONSHIP THAN
THE UNITED STATES. THEREFORE, OBVIOUSLY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHO THOUGHT THEY WANTED TO COME OUT AND JOIN THE BEST SAILORS
IN THE WORLD WOULD BE WELCOME.
QUESTION MR HAWKE CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR OWN ATTITUDE IS NOW
TOWARDS THE STRATEGIC MODERNISATION PROGRAMME AND SECONDLY IN VIEW OF
YOUR EARLIER COMMENTS, CAN WE TAKE IT THAT WHEN A STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL SAID YESTERDAY, ACCORDING TO AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT, THAT
THEY BOTH FELT THAT THE STRATEGIC MODERNISATION BEING CARRIED OUT BY
THE UNITED STATES WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS THOSE ENDS, THAT IS DETERRENCE
AND ARMS CONTROL THAT HE WAS UNDER A MISAPPREHENSION?
ANSWER WELL I THINK I'VE MADE IT CLEAR BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHAT THE
INTENTION OF THE STATEMENT WAS. I KNOW TO WHOM YOU'RE REFERRING.
ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IN THE BRIEFING THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE
MEDIA EARLIER TODAY BY A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, THE POSITION
HAS BEEN PUT AS I PUT IT. NOW ITS ON THE RECORD, I THINK NO PURPOSE
IS SERVED BY REPEATING WHAT I HAVE QUITE CLEARLY SAID. AS TO MY OWN
POSITION, MY POSITION IS THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT I HAVE JUST PUT
TO THIS MEETING. I f
7L'-
::. OC C COXING CACS TO STRATEGIC DEFENC7
IvE z! I^ IST R Y~ S
STRATEGIC MODERNISATION PROGRAMME. DO YOU IN ANY WAY
l: 1SAGREE OR AGREE WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ON THIS
J: T; ATIVE, YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF INITIATIVES WHICH
C EA. THE ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM THE FACE OF THE
ART: 9? D: O YOU INCLUDE THIS INITIATIVE IN THOSE INITIATIVES WHICH
-il-L0A TO THIS END?
A'SWER POSIT. ION IN REGARD TO THE SDI IS QUITE CLEAR AND I HAVE
. AD) T> AT POSITION CLEAR IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND
IT TPE OTHER RELEVANT MEMBERS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT IS
IHAT WHILE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT AS IT'S SEEN BY THE UNITED
STATES AOINISTRATION FROM IT'S POINT OF VIEW ON THIS RESEARCH
P OGRAE, iE ARE NOT ENDORSING IT. IT'S NOT AN INITIATIVE AS FAR AS
; AE USTRALIAN GOVERNMENT IS CONCERNED THAT RECEIVES OUR ENDORSEMENT.
S. ;-; AVE HA: D EXPOUNDED TO US WHAT THE REASONING IS OF THE UNITED
ETATES. LET ME SAY THAT WE ACCEPT THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR EXPOSITION.
' RE NOT UESTIONING THAT EXPOSITION. BUT WE DON'T ENDORSE THE
' PROGPRAMME. AS WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE WE PERCEIVE DIFFICULTIES
THAT CAN ARISE UNDER THE PROPOSAL. IT IS BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS
A3OUT A CAPACITY FOR TOTAL DEFENCE AGAINST INCOMING OFFENSIVE WEAPONS
WHICH RAISTE VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS AND WHICH RAISE THE QUESTION OF
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE PERIOD, THIS LONG TIME SCALE FOR RESEARCH
THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT TEN OR PERHAPS MORE YEARS. IN THAT
SITUATION THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS AN INCREASED POSSIBILITY
OF A BUILD-UP OF DEFENSIVE WEAPONS NOT ONLY ON THE OTHER SIDE BUT
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. NOW THESE ARE MATTERS OF CONCERN AND
BECAUSE WE HAVE LAID DOWN THE CONCERN WHICH I'VE EXPRESSED AND WHICH
HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE UNITED STATES THE QUESTION OF ENDORSEMENT
THEREFORE DOES NOT ARISE. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT, I THINK, THAT WE DO
NOT QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AS TO THEIR VIEW.
OUESTION: PRIME MINISTER, A SMALL WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST IN
PLACE OF THAT INITIATIVE, DID YOU MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS IN PLACE OF
THAT INITIATIVE?
ANSWER: I DIDN'T MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS IN PLACE OF IT, OTHER THAN THE
OVERWHELMING POSITION OF THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS BEEN
FOLLOWED FROM THE DAY WE CAME TO OFFICE, AND THAT IS, THAT IN ALL
RELEVANT FORUMS, WE SHOULD JOIN WITH LIKE MINDED GOVERNMENTS TO
PURSUE NEGOTIATIONS CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE A
REDUCTION IN THE LEVEL OF NUCLEAR ARSENALS IN THE WORLD, AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE WELCOMED, AND I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY WHILE HERE, OF
WELCOMING DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
INITIATIVE THAT BEEN TAKEN IN REGARD TO THE GENEVA TALKS. WE HAVE
BEEN EXTENSIVELY BRIEFED, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TALKS, AND THEN AGAIN
WHILE WE HAVE BEEN HERE, AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THOSE TALKS, AND
WE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THAT WE
SUPPORT, NOT ONLY THAT INITIATIVE, BUT WE WILL IN THE AREA OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY, CHEMICAL WEAPONS AREA OF ACTIVITY
WHERE WE ARE SEEKING A NEW PROTECTIVE TREATY. IN ALL RELEVANT FORUMS
WE WOULD SEEK TO PRODUCE A SITUATION WHICH WILL REDUCE THE LEVEL OF
ARMAMENTS, THAT IS IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE, OUR
POSITION. WE WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE THAT POSITON IN ALL RELEVANT
INTERNATIONAL FORUMS. ./ 7
7--o 9 7 D,
* j C c T7 T S CE AR ON 0N\ YOU SATO THAT AUST RAlJlA
UL3 CONTINUE MILITARY COOPERATIN WITH NEW ZEALAND. SPECTFICALLY
ILL THE NEW ZEALAND FRIGATE THAT WAS GOING TO AUSTRALIA FOR TH ESE
[ XERCISE3 NEXT MONTH ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE WITH AUSTRALIAN SHIPS
WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES?
ANSWER: I CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR FRIGATE, BUT WHAT'S
HAPPENED NOW, IS THAT YOU HAD IN PLACE, A SET OF ARRANGEMENTS WHICH
WERE POSTULATED UPON THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE THREE POWERS. NOW THEY
HAVE BEEN CANCELLED. NOW WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS THERE WILL BE
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN OUR TWO GOVERNMENTS, AUSTRALIA AND UNITED STATES,
AS TO THE EXERCISE THAT WE WILL CONDUCT, AND THERE WILL BE
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN US AND NEW ZEALAND AS TO WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR
AN EXERCISE BETWEEN US SO I OBVIOUSLY CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH
REGARD TO THAT DISPUTE YET.
QUESTION: WOULD I BE CORRECT IN YOU MENTIONED THAT NORMAL ANZUS
ACTIVITIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA WILL CONTINUE.
ANSWER: YES
QUESTION: WOULD IT BE CORRECT TO PRESUME THAT THESE ACTIVITIES YOU
DESCRIBE SHOWING A MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND SO ON EXCLUDE NEW
ZEALAND? IN OTHER WORDS, WILL THERE BE DE-FACTO BILATERAL LINES
WITHIN THE
ANSWER: WELL, TAKE THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED, AS FAR AS THE
EXERCISES ARE CONCERNED THEY WILL BE BILATERAL. THAT'S THE MAIN
THEME OF WHAT I'VE SAID. NOW AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF THE SHARING
OF INTELLIGENCE IS CONCERNED IT IS NOT CERTAIN AT THIS STAGE WHAT
DECISION THE UNITED STATES WILL MAKE ABOUT THAT. THEREFORE I CAN'T
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN, IT MAY BE THE DECISION OF
THE UNITED STATES THAT THEY CONTINUE TO SHARE AN INTELLIGENCE. IF
THAT THE CASE YOU'LL INAUDIBLE.. FOR QUITE AWHILE.
QUESTION: MR PRIME MINISTER, YOU MENTIONED THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE
RELATIONS IN YOUR COUNTRY, I'M CERTAIN YOU ARE AWARE OF THE ACTIONS
THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE ON CAPITOL HILL. SENATOR COHN OF MAINE
I THINK IS GOING TO INAUDIBLE.. ( QUESTION REFERS TO TRADE
SANCTIONS AGAINST NEW ZEALAND). WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THAT
PARTICULAR ACTION AND IN VIEW OF THE EXERCISES BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND
ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THAT KIND OF PROTECTIONIST COLOURED FAME
CAN ALSO AFFECT AUSTRALIA AS WELL?
ANSWER: WELL LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR, WE HAVE NOT ASKED AT ALL AND WILL
NOT ASK FOR ANY TRADE RETALIATION ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND I MADE IT CLEAR I HOPE IN ANSWER TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION THAT WE
WOULD NOT SEEK A RESIDUAL BENEFIT FOR AUSTRALIA ON ANY DECISION THAT
MAY BE TAKEN. AND WHEN I SAY MAY BE TAKEN, I REPEAT WHAT I SAID
BEFORE, WE HAVEN'T ASKED FOR NOR WILL I ASK FOR ANY TO BE TAKEN.
QUESTION: WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS IT SOME SORT OF MEASURES ARE TAKEN
BY CONGRESS OR ATTEMPTED TO BE TAKEN, ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT SOME
SORT OF MEASURES LIKE THAT COULD ALSO BE TAKEN AGAINST AUSTRALIA IN
THE WAKE OF THE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND THE U. S. OVER THE
MX MISSILE?
ANSWER: IT IS QUITE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
UNITED STATES THAT THERE IS NO ANALOGY BETWEEN THE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES
( INTERRUPTION FROM AUDIENCE)
PRIME MINISTER: YES? / 8
0. W H59706
( U E 7TION: T ERE IS QUITE A DIFFERENCE THIS TIME BETWEEN THE FEELING
YOUR LAST VISIT WHAT'S HAPPENED ON THIS VISIT? ARE YOU
(-APPOI4TEL WITH THIS?
ANSWER: No) I'M NOT. I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT ALTHOUGH I'M STILL
EXTRAORDINARILY TIRED BUT MY INITIAL STATEMENT IS CLEAR AND
UNEQUIVOCAL, AND IF YOU HAD HEARD, LISTENED TO THAT STATEMENT, IT HAD
PROVIDED THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
c; UESTIC:) N: MR PRIME MINISTER, WHY SHOULD THE UNITED STATES NOT
CONSIDER NEW ZEALAND AND FOR THAT MATTER AUSTRALIA TO HAVE DIMISHED
" 0 ANY DEGREE AS AN ALLY BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS THE TWO GOVERNMENTS
IAVE TAKEN, NEW ZEALAND ON THE SHIPS AND YOUR GOVERNMENT ON THE MX
TRACKING? ANSWER: WELL AGAIN I UNDERSTAND FROM THE BRIEFING THAT'S ALREADY
EUiEEN GIVEN THE ANSWER'S MADE QUITE CLEAR. WE SEE IT AND WE
UNDERSTAND IT AND IT'S ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES. IN REGARD TO
THE ANZUS TREATY, WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IS A CONTINUING REALTIONSHIP
FROM 1951A. A VERY LONG STANDING ARRANGEMENTS WHICH HAVE INVOLVED THE
FACILITIES FOR SHIPS FORM THE UNITED STATES. THAT'S ONE ASPECT OF
IT, AND THE CESSATION OF A PROVISION OF THAT FACILITY CREATES
AN OBVIOUS CONTINUING, IN REGARD TO THE OTHER ISSUE BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND OURSELVES, THERE WAS A MUTUALLY ARRIVED AT POSITION
IN REGARD TO A ONE-OFF SITUATION AND THE DIFFERENCES I WOULD SUGGEST
ARE FAIRLY OBVIOUS.
QUESTION: MR HAWKE DID YOU EXPLAIN TO OR GIVE ANY COMMENT TO THE
AMERICANS AT ALL ON WHAT YOU THOUGHT ON THE POSSIBLE CUTTING OFF OF
INTELLIGENCE SHARING WITH NEW ZEALAND AND IF THIS IN FACT HAPPENS
DOES THAT MEAN THAT AUSTRALIA WOULD HAVE TO CUT OFF INTELLIGENCE AS
WELL SO AS NOT TO CIRUCMSTANCE THE U. S. POSITION?
ANSWER: THE AREA THAT YOU TALK ABOUT WAS DISCUSSED AND THE UNITED
STATES MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION ON THIS
MATTER: THEY HAVE MADE NO DECISION TO CUT-OFF INTELLIGENCE AND WE
OBVIOUSLY DON'T SEEK TO INTERFERE IN THAT AREA. IT'S A MATTER FOR
THEM TO DECIDE AND THEN ONCE THEY HAVE MADE THEIR DECISION THEN WE
WILL BE INFORMED I GUESS OF THE PROCESSES AND OF THE DECISION AND WE
DEAL WITH THAT WHEN IT ARISES, IT HASN'T ARISEN YET.
QUESTION: INAUDIBLE WHAT YOU THOUGHT WOULD HAPPEN HAS HAPPENED.
ANSWER: I DIDN'T SEEK TO INFLUENCE THEM IN THEIR DECISION, I SAID
THAT'S A MATTER FOR THEM.
QUESTION: PRIME MINISTER, IF NEW ZEALAND CONTINUES TO DIG IN WHATS
GOING TO HAPPEN?
ANSWER: I THINK TO SOME EXTENT I'VE DWELT ON THAT BEFORE, LET ME GO
TO THE ELEMENTS THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT. THE TREATY WILL NOT BE
ABBROGATED, NEW ZEALAND WILL NOT BE FACING A SITUATION WHERE BECAUSE
OF THEIR ACTION AUSTRALIA. AND THE UNITED STATES HAVE TORN UP THE
TREATY AND CREATED A NEW RELATIONSHIP UNDER SOME NEW TREATY. SO THE
TREATY WILL REMAIN THERE READY FOR THE RESUMPTION OF FULL OPERATIONS
BETWEEN THE THREE OF US, IF AND'WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND
WERE TO CHANGE ITS POSITION. AND I'VE MERELY SAID AGAIN THAT AS FAR
AS WE'RE CONCERNED WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE BRINGING PRESSURE ON THE
GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND, IT'S FOR THEM, AND WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR
ME TO SPECULATE WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITHIN NEW ZEALAND., NOT ONLY
IMPROPER BUT WOULD BE ILL-INFORMED, I'VE GOT NO IDEA WHAT WILL HAPPEN
./ 9
WH59708
IHEE. WHAT WE REGARD AS IMPORTANT IS THAT-WE SHOULD RETAIN FRIENDLY
F. ELATIONS AND EFFECTIVE RELATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW
Z!: EAL* AND. ITS IMPORTANT TO US THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
THROUGH THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THEY STILL REGARD NEW ZEALAND AS A
FRIEND. NOW ONE CAN ONLY EXPRESS THE HOPE THAT IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES AT SOMETIME DOWN THE TRACK WE'LL BE ABLE TO RESUME A
FULL NORMAL BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP.
QlUESTION:. WHY DO YOU HAVE NO PLANS TO PRESSURE NEW ZEALAND, AND DO
YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO MEET WITH THE OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
PASS ALONG SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAVE HAD HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES?
PRIME MINISTER: TO? WHAT?
QUESTION: DO YOU PLAN TO MEET WITH OFFICIALS OF THE NEW ZEALAND
GOVERNMENT TO AT LEAST DISCUSS WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES REGARDING THEIR ACTION?
ANSWER? THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PLANS BEEN BROUGHT. UP, B3UT I'M QUITE
CERTAIN THAT THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION BETWEEN OUR OFFICIALS AND I
THINK PROBABLY BETWEEN OUR MINISTERS. t 41pe' iv..