TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH JOHN STANLEY, MACQUARIE RADIO,
31 JANUARY 1987
E 0 E -PROOF ONLY
STANLEY: Prime Minister you have said youi that bel-ieve you-are
now as up to date on the Middle'East as anyone else, apart from
the parties themselves, what are you going to do with that knowledge
now that you have got it?
PM: I have already done sime things with it. I took from Jordan
as I indicated to them that I would, the story of their commitment
which I absolutely accept to the processes of securing peace between
Israel and its Arab neighbours and I think that has been helpful.
I have taking the views from the Israeli Government to President
Mubarak about the commitment and great desire of Israel to be
associated with Egypt in assisting with economic development in
the area. I have undertaken to the Government of Israel to make
further representations to the Soviet government about the question
of Soviet Jewry. I have undertaken also to make certain
representations to the Government of China about the position in
the Middle East. And I have said from the beginning, John, and
I repeat I don't set myself up, and Australia doesn't set itself
up to be mediator. Simply, the positionz now is that I have been
given this unique opportunity of sharing the confidences of the
three states that I have visited-, the opportunitiy of talking with
representatives of the Palestinians. I simply say that if there
are any other things that the parties feel that I can do then we
stand ready to do it. But I repeat we are not saying that " look
here I am, I am now so well informed, off we go to settle a dispute".
That is not the way I look at it. but we stand ready to help in
any way that they think we may be able to.
STANLEY: You urged Israel to consider recognition of the PLO,
with qualifications the PLO would have to recognise Israel.
When did you decide that it was time for Israel to take that step.
PM: If you look back to things I wrote in the 1970s I haven't
got a copy with me, but I think it was fairly specifically in the
Boyer Lectures in ' 79 I was saying these things. That you had
to get a contemporaneity, if you like, of the PLO recognising Israel,
and truly recognising. And not just in some formal way. The
conditions are the acceptance of resolutions 242 and 338 of the
United Nations which secondly involves the recognition of Israel
and thirdly, the repudiation of terror. And to get contemporaneousl
with that then Israel saying then, in those circumstances, we are
prepared in the negotiating processesto treat with PLO. So I
have said that a long, long time ago. I think really what has
happened on this occasion is that getting more immersed in the
detail, more immersed in the attitude of the people directly involved I
P'M cont: I have had my long-held view on this issue confirmed.
that if we could get, as I have put, the translation of the actuality
In other words, I think the actuality now is on the part of the
PLO that however reluctantly they may come to that conclusion,
I think they now understand that Israel is here to stay. on ther
other hand, I think that Israel understands the reality of the
representative capacity of the PLO provided those conditions are
met. And I think that the processes of getting to peace the
very complicated processes would be helped if those actualities
were translated into formal statements.
STANELY: The PLO says it represents the Palestinian people. You
have spoken with passion about the Jewish people, the Israel i state
being established from a dispersed and oppressed people. How does
the Palestinian cause today stack up against the cause of the Jewish
people in the late 1940s.
PM: What you have got to understand is this that when the United
Nations in 1947 made the decision it wasn't a decision which simply'--
envisaged the creation of the state of Israel. It envisaged the
opportunity of a Palestinian state. And up until 1967 Israel
was created as a state in 1948 out of the 1947 United Nations
decisions. For a period of 20 years it was open to states other
than Israel to enable the creation of a Palestinian state. They
didn't do that because they didn't envisage the state of Palestine
which didn't involve the disappearance of the state of Israel.
The position in 1987 20 years later is that I think the Arab
states and the PLO, however reluctantly in some cases, do accept.
the reality and the continued existence of Israel. So we have
got to translate those new realities into part of the negotiating
processes. And within that process,.* the rights of the Palestinian.
people have to observed and our policy as a Government says that
the rights of self-determination include the possibility of an
independent Palestinian state. But what is quite clear from my
discussions in Jordan and with the Palestinians is that what they
see as the only viable, in both political and economic terms, to
come out of that process is a confederatien-of the Palestinians
with Jordan.
STANLEY: Just moving on to Davos where you talked to overseas
investors. One of the things you talked about there was the ACTu
providing some assurances to overseas investors about the industrial
relations climate. Could you see a situation where a potential
investor asks for a no-strike agreement and was actually given
it by the ACTU?
PM: I suppose it is conceivable although I think that the sort
of countries that we are dealing with are all democratic countries
where it is recognised that finally labour should have the right
to withdraw labour. I think rather what we all ought to try and
see is a situation where you create the circumstances in which
that right is not eliminated but that you create a framework of
agreement which contains the processes of dispute settlement which
would make the use of that right unnecessary.
STANLEY: The people you addressed at Davos were not politicians
they are the people that sign the cheques, they are the ones
that make the decisions about investment in Australia what feedback
did you get from them?
PM: If I can reply with all due modesty, it was a magnificent
feedback. I think you know that from others. We got a great
reception. And it was not just a reception for me personally,
Bob Hawke, but I think it also reflected an increased
appreciation of the achievements of Australia. And of
course, I and the Government. properly, claim a considerable amount
of credit for what has happened in the last 4 years. But I think,
importantly also, there is an increased appreciation of not merely
the resources of Australia. its political stability, its significance
in the region but I think there is an increased understanding that
changes have been effected, that there is now a much more positive
approach by alt the constituents in Australia towards trying to
get new investment, to try and create a more diversified economy._
to develop a manufacturing base which can be import
competitive and export-oriented.-And I think perhaps the biggestvirtue_
of my visit there was the understanding __ that we as a gvernment_
are not just talking rhetoric but wehave made a whole range of.
relevant decisions the deregulation of -the-financial sectorthe
restructuring of sectors of our industry, the iron-and steel
industry, the heavy engineering, the shipbuilding, textile, clothing
and footwear. They see that it is not just rhetoric on our part
but we have made the relevant decisions that we are putting
Australia in the position to be competitive. And they want to
be part of that.
STANLEY: You have also received news over the weekend from Sydney
-the by-elections. Were you surprised that you did so well?
PM: No. There were signs before I left -and you will recall
a Bulletin poll which showed that Barrie Unsworth had improved
HIS STANDIN~ G VERY CONSIDERABLY AND I THINK IN THE END IT WORKED
OUT MUCH IN THE WAY THAT I THOUGHT. THAT IS THAT SURE THERE WAS
SOME CONCERN IN THE ELECTORATES ABOUT, IF YOU LOOK AT IT..
THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS, THE TOUGH
DECISIONS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MADE. THAT HAD TO BE AN
ELEMENT. THERE WAS ALSO SOME DISSATISFACTIONS. THERE WAS SOME
ELEMENT OF WHAT HAD BEEN HAPPENING WITHIN NEW SOUTH WALES. IN THE
END ESSENTIALLY, THE ELECTORATE WAS FACED WITH A CHOICE BETWEEN
LABOR AND THE LIBERAL. AND IF THERE HAS BEEN ONE CHARACTERISTIC
OF RECENT TIMES, INCLUDING RIGHT UP TO THE PRESENT OF AUSTRALIAN
POLITICS, IN GENERAL AND IT IS TRUE IN NEW SOUTH WALES AS WELL, IS THI
THE LIBERAL PARTY OFFERS NO ALTERNATIVE. IT IS NQT AN ALTERNATIVE
GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRALIA. AND MAY I SAY THAT IS THE VIEW NOT ONLY
STRONGLY HELD BY MYSELF BUT APPARENTLY IT IS RECENTLY STRONGLY HELD
BY JOH BJELKE PETERSEN. IN OTHER WORDS,-THE PEOPLE, I SUPPOSE THEY
WANTED TO GIVE A BIT OF A WRAP To BARRIE AND THE GOVERNMENT, PERHAPS
A LITTLE BIT OF A RAP TO US, I DON: T KNOW, I DON: T THINK VERY MUCH
TO ASK. I MEAN, AFTER ALL, THEY SAID GIVE KEATING A BEATING. WELL,
HE DIDN: T GET MUCH OF A BEATING. IT WAS THE LIBERAL PARTY THAT TOOK
A THRASHING. AND MY VIEW IS THAT IN NEW SOUTH WALES POLITICS
JOHN, NEW SOUTH WALES LABOR PROBABLY HAD ITS NADIR IN BASS HILL. THE'
ARE ON THEIR WAY UP NOW AND THAT WHEN, THE STATE ELECTION COMES IN 198:
BARRIE UNSWORTH WILL DO WHAT WE WILL DO, THAT IS WE WILL BOTH WIN.
STANELYt JUST ON THE KEATING ASPECT. Do YOU THINK HE IS GOING
FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL J CURVE NOW. DO YOU THINK HE IS ON THE UP.
PM. I BELIEVE so. HE CERTAINLY DESERVES TO BE BECAUSE PAUL KEATING
HAS BEEN A MAGNIFICENT TREASURER. LET ME MAKE THIS POINT INTO NEW
SOUTH WALES POLITICS AND TO THE ORDINARY PEOPLE OF NEW SOUTH WALES.
THERE IS NOONE NOW IN POLITICS WHO HAS GOT TO KNOW PAUL KEATING BETTER
THAN I DO. HE HAS AT TIMES AN APPEARANCE OF ALOOFNESS. PEOPLE MIGHT
TEND TO THINK THAT HE IS INVOLVED JUST SOLELY AND PREOCCUPIED SOLELY
WITH THE IMPORTANT ISSUES OF MANAGEMENT OF THE ECONOMY-AS A WHOLE.
A1 WANT TO SAY TO YOUR LISTENERS,_. THAT I SIT. WITH PAUL-KEATING IN
MEETINGS OF THE EXPENDITURE REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT WORKS UP TO THE
PREPARATION OF BUDGET. I SIT WITH HIM IN CABINET MEETINGS. AND
PAUL KEATING IS A MAN WHO HAS A DEEP COMMITMENT TO TRADITIONAL LABOR
PRINCIPLES AND INTERESTS. THAT IS, HIS CONCERN WITH ECONOMIC GROWTH
GETTING THE ECONOMY RIGHT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIRECTED TOWARDS TRYING
TO CREATE THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE'
THE BEST CHANCE OF IMPROVING THEIR CONDITIONS AND WITHIN WHICH
THE CHILDREN OF WORKING PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE BEST
OPPORTUNITY OF DEVELOPING THEIR TALENT. THAT IS NOT RHETORIC ON
MY PART. I HAVE SEEN IT, I KNOW HE IS CONCE RNED. I HAVE SEEN IN
EXPENDITURE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETIN6S WHEN THE MINISTER, BRIAN HOWE, HAS
BROUGHT UP PROPOSALS FOR WANTING TO IMPRO6EOUTLAYS IN THE SOCIAL
WELFARE AREA. THERE IS ALSO A RESPONSIVE NOTE WITH PAUL KEATING TO
THOSE SORTS OF CONSIDERATIONS.
STANLEY-YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY HAPPY WITH PAUL KEATING. YOU ARE BACK IN
CANBERRA TOMORROW NIGHT, THERE HAS BEEN NO TALK OF A RESHUFFLE OVER
THE CHRISTMAS PERIOD. CAN WE ASSUME THEN THAT THIS WILL BE THE
LINEUP, IN BROAD TERMS, THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE ELECTION WITH.
PM+ THERE ARE SOME CHANGES OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL ARISE FROM
SENATOR GRIMES. BUT I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT
ANY MAJOR RESHUFFLE. AND THE POINT TO BE REMEMBERED IS THIS AND MAY I S
THAT I HAVE HAD THIS CONFIRMED BY THE OBSERVATIONS Of THE BUSINESSMEN
IN DAVOS AND THEY SAID IT, NOT JUST IN FRONT OF MET BUT IN FRONT
A WHOLE LOT OF EUROPEAN PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, THIS IS THE BEST
GOVERNMENT SINCE THE WAR.-THEY TALK ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THIS
MINISTRY. AND THEY TALK ABOUT IT IN UNQUALIFIED TERMS THAT THIS IS
A MINISTRY OF GREAT TALENT. THAT TALENT HAS BEEN HONED AND SHARPENED
PM CONT: IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR EXISTING PORTFOLIO DUTIES.
AND IT JUST WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE THERE TO HAVE AN EXTENSIVE
RESHUFFLE. ENDS 4. ii,