TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE -FRIDAY 11 APRIL 1986
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: Ladies and Gentleman this press conference was originally
called to preview the overseas visit I'm undertaking next week.
I'll just give you a brief resume of my views on that. There may
be perhaps some other matters that you want to ask me questions
about, which you can do after I've done that. You will
appreciate that the common theme running through the talks I'll
be having in Washington, London, Brussels, Rome and Athens, that
is the concern the Government has for the position of Australia's
rural producers, in the light of the corruption of international
markets for agricultural commodities. So with that as our
primary concern we will in the United States be asking basically
two things. Firstly, that the administration of the United
States should have regard to the interests of Australia's
producers, in effect to their farm legislation. And that there
should be, in so far as they proceed with that program, there
should be a specific targeting of the program against those with
a real concern in the United States and that there should not be
an adverse impact upon Australia's rural producers. The second
consideration that will be advanced is that the United States
should use its best endeavours to ensure that at the Tokyo Summit
meeting the question of trade and agricultural products should
be on the agenda and that the United States and the rest of those
engaged in the Summit should ensure that at the upcoming MTN
round that agriculture should have a prominent place so that a
much more stringent rules and regime in the GATT that apply to
manufactured products should also apply in the case of
agricultural goods. of course I'll be proceeding with the same
range of arguments less the specific consideration of the United
States farm legislation when I go to the United Kingdom, Brussels
and to Rome and to Athens. While in the United States I will be
addressing other matters in my conversations with the President
and other representatives of the administration and Congress.
without being exhaustive about those other matters, we'll be
talking about the ANZUS alliance. About the South Pacific
nuclear free zone and the desire that we as a country in the
South Pacific have that the United States should adhere to the
protocol of that treaty. we'll be talking about East/ West
relations and arms control. And certainly I'll be wanting to
talk to President Reagan about questions concerning southern
Africa. I will in my visit to Rome and Athens, of course, be
talking about matters of bilateral interest to us which spring
very much from the fact that we in Australia have benefited so
significantly from having a large Italian and Greek origin
population. There will be matters of general interest for 8 A-1-n
discussion. Quite specifically also I'll be talking about the
question of reciprocal social security arrangements. In that
respect we'll be signing the relevant treaty arrangement with
Prime Minister Craxi. So ladies and gentleman, that broadly is
the ambit of the visit that I'll be undertaking. I think it may
be most efficient if we have any questions directed to that area,
then throw it open to anything else you want to talk about.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke the administration has already given
Australia a number of assurances and taken a number of measures
to ensure Australian agricultural trade is not affected by the
Farm Act. Do you think it's realistic to expect further
assurances and concessions?
PM: I believe so. of course those assurances that you refer to
already have flowed most recently from the very valuable work
done by Mr Dawkins, the minister for Trade, on his visit to
Washington. I'll be attempting to build on that work.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke in all the time that the GATT's been going
there's been very little done for agriculture. Have you any
particular reason to be more hopeful of the outcome this time?
PM: I think there's one reason in particular and that is that
the burden of the common agricultural policy of the European
Community is, of course, increasing very significantly and is n ow
of such dimensions that it is not only causing very considerable
problems for efficient producers, like Australia, but it is also
assuming increasing burden for the European countries themselves.
It's adding significantly to their own costs and price structure.
That involves a divergent and a misallocation of economic
resources. It means that they can't optimize their own levels of
economic activity. Now I think the understanding of that fact is
one reason why we should have some greater degree of optimism in
this area than we could have had in the past.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, more or less on the subject, could you
give us a summary of your talks with Secretary Weinberger?
PM: Well we covered-the issues of the ANZUS alliance, what the
current position was and put the certain hypothetical situation
if the New Zealanders went ahead with their proposed legislation.
Of course I repeated what I have said both privately -and,
publicly, that in that event we would be looking for. a position
where the United States did not seek to repudiate the treaty
itself. It makes sense to leave that in place and that as
between the United states and Australia there should be an
interchange of letters between President Reagan and myself, the
effect of which would be to establish that as between our two
countries the provisions of the treaty continue to operate. We
discussed, as well, at some length, the South Pacific Nuclear
Free Zone Treaty. I was at pains to establish in the mind of the
Secretary that it would be a quite wrong interpretation of the
development of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to
believe that for any of the countries of the South Pacific it
represented any reaction to some Soviet position. A view that at
* least implicitly could have been said to be expressed in a recent
Department of Defence publication in the United States. I
stressed to the Secretary that this was a truly indigenous view,
strongly held, unanimously held by countries in the forum. I
emphasised that in our advocacy of the treaty and in all the
argumentation that had gone on in the forum we had stressed that,
as far as Australia was concerned, the treaty would not be, and
would not be allowed to be by us, inconsistent with our treaty
obligations and arrangements with the United States. And in that
sense I expressed the hope to the Secretary that the United
States would be able to see its way clear to become adherence to
the protocols. We talked also about developments in the
Philippines. They were the most substantial areas of discussion.
There was some discussion on SDI as well.
JOURNALIST: Sir did the Secretary give you any confirmation of
the reports out of Washington that the Americans are planning
more strikes against Libya.
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: Did you raise with him the continued nuclear testing
in Nevada?
PM: No I did not go specifically to that.
JOURNALIST: When you put to him that it would be helpful for the
Americans to adhere to the three protocols of the treaty what was
his response? Did he indicate that that might happen in the
short-term, or long-term?
PM: No. It would not be fair to the Secretary to say that he
gave any such indication. I think the fairest way of putting it
is he listened very carefully to the exposition I put, the strong
expression of view that I put, that we would not allow our
obligations, responsibilities and rights under our
pre-arrangements with the United States, to be in any sense
abrogated or diminished by the treaty. I think he understands
that. Now, of course, the processes within the United States
Administration will have to be pursued to what decision they make
on this matter. It's a point that I'll be taking up further when
I'm in the United States.
JOURNALIST: How optimistic are you sir that they will eventually
go along with it?
PM: I think it's a matter in which it is unwise to post the
odds. But I think our case is strong and I think the United
States is persuaded of the integrity and validity of the position
that we're putting. I think perhaps that the problem is not in
that respect, but rather is to what impact adherence to the
protocols by the United States may have for them, in their
relations elsewhere.
JOURNALIST: What was the substance of the discussion on SDI?
PM: I said to the Secretary that I understood that the Defence
minister, Beazley, had discussed this in detail with him, which
he confirmed with me he had. And so therefore the Secretary had
a clear understanding of our position which had been put by the
4
minister in the Parliament earlier this week. Not much of
substance beyond that, expect that on my part I reiterated the
belief of the Government that while we accepted completely the
integrity of the United States in their approach on this matter
we could not be persuaded that, as far as we were concerned, it
would be appropriate for Australia to be associated with the
program. JOURNALIST: Mr Weinberger has made it clear that he is still
going to offer Australian companies an opportunity to take part
in the SDI program. Are you happy with that?
PM: It's not a question of happiness, or unhappiness. As has
been made clear by the minister for Defence, we will be
receiving, as a Cabinet, submissions from the appropriate
ministers on this matter and those residual areas, as the
Minister for Defence referred to, will be considered in the light
C of those submissions.
JOURNALIST: On the Dawkins' matter, Mr Hawke, if the situation
arose in the future in a situation similar to Mr Dawkins', would
you be quite happy for a Minister to adopt the same attitude as
Mr Dawkins, that is to make his own decision as to whether there
is a conflict of interest or do you think it is preferable to
put the matter before his colleagues.
PM: Mike, I made clear in the Parliament today, and despite
rather asinine observations from those opposite, there was no
change from the position that we had put from the beginning on
this. And that is that as a matter of regular, consistent
requirements there will be, as laid down in the documentation
which I tabled and of which you are aware, the requirement
of the declaration of interest in regard to the Minister and
members of their immediate family defined as you know it is.
Now, that is step one. Step two, as I have said in the Parliament
today, I don't think it is possible to have a general rule for
fairly obvious reasons. Now, in saying that, there clearly
could be cases in which some interest beyond the Minister and
his or her immediate family could be relevant. Therefore, my
pos ition would be that I would expect my Ministers to exercise
their judgement. I can't have a general rule beyond immediate
family. And I don't think anyone is really suggesting that you
can. So therefore at the second level beyond immediate family,
it becomes a question of judgement by the Minister concerned.
Therefore, I say i~ n regard, and I take this opportunity of
repeating in this audience, that I believe that the judgement
made by Mr DAwkins was one taken in good faith and that he
believed, on his consideration of it, that there was no conflict
involved. He did not need to disclose. it. On the record of
my Ministry in the over three years of government now, I have
faith in the integrity of all of them. If we want to look
comparatively at the record of this Government with our predecessors,
there is only one conclusion that you can come to and that is
that the previous government was scandal -ridden. There was
a procession of resignations and dismissals. There should have
been more, as I indicated today in the Parliament. This has
been a solid Ministry and one of integrity. I have no reason
to believe Mike that any of my Ministers would not address
their minds, in the hypothetical situation to which you refer,
and come up with the appropriate decision. And in those
sort of circumstances where, by defintion, I think it is not
open to have a general rule beyond the immediate family. One
is in a position where you need to rely on the integrity of
Ministers. I have every confidence in all of them.
JOURNALIST: Are you now happy with the situation where if he
knows his mother stands to benefit from a decision in which he
is taking part, he doesn't have to declare it. Is that what you
are saying?
PM: Yes. If the Minister makes the decision and addresses his
or her mind to the question and is satisfied that there is no
conflict of interests then on all the evidence I have had to
this point, I have no reason to belief that the integrity of
the decision making process will be prejudiced.
JOURNALISTS: Why not take the same attitude to wives and
children?
PM: I think for fairly obvious reasons. There is much more
likelihood in the natural course of events of disposition of assets,
not only in regard to Ministers, but everyone affairs, there
is much more likelihood of a flow of assets between a person,
whether it is a Minister or not, and wife and children than there
is to distant relatives.
JOURNALIST: Mother isn't distant, Prime Minister?
PM: Well, it is not a normal sort of situation that you are
in the acquisition of assets, going to be placing them with
your mother. It is much more likely that there will be a
co-location of assets and interests between husband and wife
and husband and children.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, surely this is the wrong way round.
PM: You may say surely it is the wrong way round..
JOURNALIST: The flow of assets usually from parents to
children? PM: In terms of the bequest of assets. I am talking about
the situation as you acquire assets yourself. The reason for
the immediacy of the rule, I think, has been quite clear. It is
not only our rule. -The defintion that is involved in the Bowen
rules and it is the definition that was involved in the decision
made by the House recently. That is made sense in practical,
realistic terms, conforming with normal practice, to talk about
immediate family. What you are implying by your question is that
there has been a mistake made not only by this Government in
terms of the guide to Ministers, but by the House, by the Bowen
set of definitions. It reflects th~ e fact that you talk about
the Minister and immediate famil~ f5Teflects, I believe, the
realities and the practicalities. AHaving said that, I want
to emphasise that I don't believe that you cannot have a
situation where an interest held by a person in relationship
with the Minister, other than in terms of that immediate family,
cannot be relevant. Now, you reach a point therefore, I am saying,
where the judgements have to reside somewhere. I have no reason,
on all the experience of my Ministers in three years, that they
are not going to exercise that judgement with integrity.
JOURNALIST: Where there are cases of doubt, wouldn't it be
better for that judgement to be done collectively or by you
as Prime Minister for the sake of consistency?
PM: Once you say that you are going into the area beyond the
immediate family, well then I think you are likely to have
a position where a whole range of issues being considered by
CAbinet and committees, you are going to have Ministers saying
well however infinitesimal it is, well I better that, I better
mention this. And I think that that is not going to produce
an effective and realistic position. If I were faced with
a position where I had any reason to believe, on three years
of Government now, that my Ministry had given evidence as acting
te. than in a proper way, then it may be that the different
sort presumption that you would seek to apply would be appropriate.
I have had no evidence to this point, that I need have that sort
of concern.
7.
JOURNALIST: Would you have made the same judgement in Mr DAwkins'
position, Mr Hawke?
PM: How can I say that. I simply can't put myself in the
situation of relationships between Mr Dawkins and his mother.
JOURNALIST: In the case of your father, perhaps, of having
a shareholding in one of those companies, would you have..
PM: You are really getting into the hypothetical area.
The old man wouldn't know what a share looked like.
JOURNALIST: Shouldn't Senator Button have known that a
company of which he was a director had shares in BHP?
PM: Well, I doubt that he should have. If you are talking
about the drawing of long bows, I think this"' about the longest
one of all. According to the note I had passed to me in the
Parliament later today, Senator Button publicly declared hi~ s
directorship of that company. It is not something that he
had hidden. I don't know whether it is the normal practice
for directors to know of the shareholding, the whole portfolio
shareholding of every company with which they are associated.
I would think it surprising. I doubt if our friends on the
other side of the House who have had associations, directorships
of companies, many of them would pretend to know the exact
portfolio shareholding of every company with which they are
associated. I would be surprised if that was the normal
practice in business.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, this company had invested half
a million dollars in BHP shares. Wouldn't you expect the directors
to know that?
PM: Well, all I can say is this. And this is the important
question. If Senator Button says he didn't know, I accept that
fact. I have no reason at all on this or any other matter
to question the integrity of Senator Button. And I would suggest
neither have you. Nor anyone else in this room.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in your statement of September 1983 you
made it clear that there was an obligation upon ministers to declare
if there was-* any possibility that a situation may arise out of
a conflict of interests, for them to declare the situation.
I am just wondering what extent has this actually worked in
practice? PM: Without going to all the details, I can say Paul, that it
has operated. And the records show that there have been occasions
on which this has happened.
JOURNALIST: : Have there been any occasions in the past when the
possibility of government appointments of close relations of
Government Ministers?
PM: I can't give you the total list because I haven't had the
total list put before me. I simply had a note that the records
show that there have been a number of occasions on which this
has happened. I am quite prepared to get that list and give you
an answer to that question. Ian not in a position to do it
at the moment. I simply don't have the information.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on that point about Senator Button.
I thought, in your statement of September 1983, that Ministers were
required to resign from directorships, a that Senator Button has
not done.
PM: I have got the House of Representatives thing here.
will cover shareholdings, directorships of private companies. And
I should make it clear in respect of that category that Ministers
are required to resign any directorship from public companies and
directorships of private companies unless for example such companies
operate ( inaudible) or investments and the retention of
the directorship is not likely to conflict with the public duty
of the Minister." Now, I think the judgement that would have
been made by the MInister is that the retention of the directorship
is not likely to conflict with his public duties.
JOURNALIST: In the light of the information we have today,
do you think he should resign that directorship?
PM: I had nothing put before me, at this point, that would
lead me to that conclusion. I intend to have a discussion
withiSenator Button. And when I say I intend to have a discussion
I don't want any implication to be drawn from that, that I have
any dissatisfaction with the Senator. But as it has now been
a matter of public record, I think it is appropriate that I
should have a discussion with him.
JOURNALIST: But you now know Sir, that that company stood to
make a very big profit from Senator Button's deliberations
PM: No. But what I do know is that he has said that he was
unaware of that shareholding. And I therefore know that, by
definition, it could not have been a matter which affected his
deliberations on that matter. It just seems to me appropriate
Laurie, that it-having been raised, it would make sense for me
S to talk with him, find out with him what is involved in his
directorship. The nature of that involvement. It seems a
very sensible thing to do. And I am sure he would want to
talk to me about it.
JOURNALIST: He conceded in the Senate sir, that under the
Companies Act he has an obligation to look after the interest of
shareholders of that company. Doesn't that conflict with his
duties as a minister in some circumstances?
PM: Not necessarily but it is precisely because, I guess, that
possibility could arise that I want to talk with him. I can't
JOURNALIST: Discussing the possibility of him resigning from the
di rectorship?
PM: Well, I won't be going in that sense I will be simply saying
look John, this matter has arisen. I accept completely your
statement that you were unaware of that shareholding, because I
would have absolutely no reason to believe that he would tell
other than the truth. I know he wouldnt. And ask what is the
nature of the function he has their and the sorts of things that
are involved. How much he is involved as a director, just what's
the range of matters which come into that directorship and then
as a result of that discussion see whether I would make that
judgment. But I don't go into it with the basis that I am saying
look you should resign. I mean it seems to me appropriate that I
should find out what the situation is.
JOURNALIST: Just to follow that up, Mr Tuckey is not a director
of the company yet he was able to find that it had these shares
in BHP. Don't you think Senator Button could have if he regarded
this as an important principle.
PM: Well, I guess Laurie, that when the matter came before the
committee it didn't occur to him. I guess there was no reason why
it should have. And now that he has become aware of it well, that
matter has now been dealth with. But all, it seems to me, that
one can do properly in these circumstances is that the matter has
arisen, as I say, I repeat to you it does seem appropriate now
that I should talk with him about it to see if there is any
potential conflict of interest and in the light of that
discussion make a decision.
JOURNALIST: Doesn't that awareness though invite self
constituted conflict of interest because he is dealing directly
with an area all the time with BHP?
PM: Well, his portfolio does very much come, into that area. He
was responsible for the steel industry plan that's right. But I
would simply make the point on that issue that the decision of
the Government, in regard to the steel industry was one which-was
not made for the benefit of BHP as such. It was made for the
benefit of the country as a whole to the extent that BHP
benefited from the steel industry plan. That was a residual, it
was not the intention of the Government action. But I don't think
I can usefully add to what I have said. I am clearly not trying
to avoid the question that has arisen as a result of the
disclosure of his directorship.
JOURNALIST: Can I go back to an earlier point Prime Minister,
since he has conceded under the Act he has an obligation to look
after the interests of shareholders of that company which holds
BHP shares as well. Isn't that intrinsically a conflict of
interest?
PM4: Potentially it is, it is one of the matters......
JOURNALIST: Intrinsically, doesn't the conflict exist all the
time? Can he look after the interest of those shareholders and
still fulfill his duties as a Cabinet minister honestly and
without any conflict?
PM: It raises a prima facie problem and that is why I want to
talk with him.
JOURNALIST: Where does that leave the Cabinet decision then Mr
Hawke, if Senator Button does accept that there was a conflict of
interest? Doesn't that undermine the Cabinet decision itself?
PM: I don't believe it undermines the Cabinet decision.
JOURNALIST: Prime minister, doesn't this point concerning
Senator Button just highlight the problem of relying on a
minister's own judgment about a possible conflict of interest in
that you have to now go back to him and really run Senator Button
through his thought processes and see if you agree with them.
PM: Well, let me say and I pick up really a point that was made
by Mick Young in his speech in the House. I think the logic of it
and the sequence of it should be understood. When the previous
government was in power they resisted strenuously any attempt to
try and bring in some rules and order into this question of
private interests and public responsibility. We have moved now to
bring a greater degree of regulation into that area. Now as the
Special Minister of State said, and I believe rightly, this issue
is going to evolve. I don't think that the Government, certainly
I wouldn't make the judgment that we necessarily have got it 100%
right when we made the change. What I would assert without any
possibility of I believe relevant objection is this that we
have made a substantial move to improve the position of bringing
into juxtaposition the question of public responsibility and
private interest. we have done infinitely more than has ever been
done before. Now if there are some bugs i-n it, if it can be
improved then so be it, that will be done. We are not to be
criticised for that. We have made the move to improve the
situation. If we can do it better, we will.
JOURNALIST: Just on that point Mr Hawke, while recognising what
the Government has done on pecuniary interests. In the light of.
what has happened involving both Senator Button today and Mr
Dawkins in the last couple days, would you be prepared to
concede that at least to some extent your ministers have been a
bit less than careful in adhering to your statement in September
1983 that they should inform on any matter that may give rise to
a conflict of interests.
Pm: You see it goes back to the answer I gave before Paul, that
I believe Mr Dawkins when he said that he addressed his mind to
this matter and believed that there was no conflict. And I am
prepared to accept that judgment and certainly in the case of
Senator Button. I accept without question his observation that he
did not
JOURNALIST: that is the point
PM: Well, could I finish. What is said here and I am referring
to the passage I understand which says ministers have to make a
declaration at meetings of Cabinet committees of any matter which
may give rise to a conflict of interest. By definition where the
knowledge is with them, in the first instance they have to make a
judgment as to whether there will be a conflict of interest. Now
I have said at the beginning I don't think you can have a general
rule about that beyond on the immediate family. Now you ask me do
V I think that they may have made an error of judgment. I don't
think in, it was only one case because with Senator Button there
was no knowledge, in the case of Mr Dawkins I am prepared to
accept his judgment. I don't believe in his consideration of the
matter that he was affected in his consideration of it by the
knowledge that his mother had some undetailed holding in Bell. I
watched him in action. I am now speaking with hindsight of
course, but I watched him in action, I listened to him. I had no
reason at all to believe from my recollection of the meetings
both with BHP and with Bell that Mr Dawkins was influenced by
that fact. There was no evidence in any way.
JOURNALIST:........ correct political judgment given the
circumstances? PM: Well, it may be that Mr Dawkins would now make a different
judgment. I don't know but I accept without hesitation that ( a)
he addressed his mind to it, as a matter of logical thought
processes he believed there was no conflict in it. I accept that
that happened and those processes. I have no reason therefore to
believe that he acted improperly. It may be that now he would
make a different decision but who can say that. The important
thing in regard to the attack that has been made on Mr Dawkins
was in regard to that circumstance. I believe implicitly that he
acted with integrity, that he did what he said he did.
JOURNALIST: Can you recollect how many times you have been
called on by other members of the ministry to make a judgment on
possible conflict of interest?
PM: No, I can't recollect that as I said in answer to a previous
question. JOURNALIST: Sir, can I change the subject briefly?
PM: Sure.
JOURNALIST: Do you expect Senator Georges to be expelled from
the Party for voting against the Government today?
PM: Let me say what has happened. I have spoken with at their
request the Chairman and Secretary of Caucus, Mr Mildren and Ros
Kelly and they have indicated that they are conveying to both the
Queensland State Secretary and Federal Secretary of the Labor
Party the action of Senator Georges and I would anticipate that
the processes of the Party will now follow.
JOURNALIST: What processes?
PM: Well, when you say processes I can say what is the provision
in the Party. A person cannot do what Senator Georges has done.
We haven't got any recent processes on which to rely but I assume
that once the State Secretary of the Party has been informed that
they would move to give effect to the provisions of the
JOURNALIST: Do you, like me, believe there is no alternative to
expulsion in the rule?
PM: Well, I am one who doesn't have a public exposition of what
goes on within this great Party. I allow that to occur privately
without expressing my view.
JOURNALIST: On the same subject Prime Minister, three members of
the House of Reps got up and amendments from the Senate
which provides for the extension of the deregistration time scale
from 3 to 5 years. They got up at about 4.25 pm. They said it
hadn't gone to Caucus, should it have gone to Caucus?
PM: Well, we had a time problem here. They discussed with the
minister and with the Leader of the House and the problem that we
had was that if in fact you have it going back to the House with
the Democrats amendments not being accepted and then going back
to the Senate, there is a timetable which the minister has in
fact initiated and in regard to which the unions involved are
then that would have been frustrated. Now in those
Scircumstances the minister met with the Caucus committee in
. offering a time to have the normal processes to which I have
referred and that was regarded in the circumstances, I believe,
by the majority of people Parliament House
ENDS