PM Transcripts

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE ORIENTAL HOTEL BANGKOK
3 FEBRUARY 1989
E. OE PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if I could start with a domestic
political question, could you~ clarify for us now what you*
meant in your answer yesterday in referring to any possible
deferral of the tax cuts that this wasn't in your thinking at
this stage?
PM: it's a case of getting unnecessarily knicker knotted
over a phrase on your part. I have made clear consistently
that the tax cuts will come in on the first of July, period.
JOURNALIST: Is Australia trying to convince Thailand of the
necessity of building a new economic bloc in. Asia Pacific to
fight against* 41992 single market in Europe and if so what is
the role of Thailand? And my second question is does
Australia intend to pursue the aim of bringing the Khmer
Rouge Pol Pot into international courts?
PM: On the first question my suggestion has been firstly in
my recent visit to the Republic of Korea and again in my
discussions with your Prime Minister that we ought in the
region to examine how we can increase co-operation,
particularly in the economic, social field between us because
we are living in a world as I put it of para-dox. The paradox
ithat there has never been more reason and ground for
optimism on the political front in the international
relations area than now. But against that there are very
serious causes for concern and some degree of pessimism about
the way in which nations are behaving in their international
economic relations. And so I have said that it makes sense
for this region which is the fastest growing most dynamic
region of the world to think about the ways in which we can
increase our co-operation and I suggested that a model
without being prescriptive about it could be an OECD type
organisation which is not a trading bloc. And that is not my
suggestion that that sort of model, however, could provide a
sensible and constructive and very useful mechanism whereby
the countries of this dynamic economic region would be able
to interchange information and also use their influence as a
group upon the recalcitrant members of the international
community, by which we basically mean increasing stand-ofts
between the European community and the United States, that we
as the most significant economic region in the world could
say to them " Look it's time you came to your senses" and that

We C-u'idi try ar~ d use 1that irlu, cr en. r. nat the
7ii'-. ilateral traue negotiations whij-r1 s,: Me EXLC~ TI-are
sl-aJ*!. ng co-ua L-o put onto a more : r.) ou i ve . rack. rsO
s-e ithat the crncept i~ s une ~ zco-ope'atio. r-z L
t :, r7 3-cp-eration within t-noi reg.,. on. i -Jn i I ro'
hr-, re. yrcu tak-e the iti-: st pessimistic 3cenar-lo, wriicii 1
! iornt -ut which cert airnly had ': ounr r,, ncy' at the
ee cr t. ! d FiC onoic Focum at Davos, -uCt F yo--i took thamis
t rt~ s.-rrts ic scenai: ic, a. nd vo~ i saw eii F-r.; e nc e tto 4
major blocs r, Europe and N rh Aev1ren , i ig that we
tiave -m'e . n dpeIoniq 7tne ideas that uI t;.' kin about
ntzrmts Of tlC~ IECU type ornu-) ue. in thl, 7e
pessuLr Lst-.-t-i-rcu. mstences p-r-ovide the biidinq lc for tle
rasort that r' . ioubt , n Th"' e curfitsteincr. Fs -ae this rcg i.-
w.: Utd. have@ to have sorfic blDc.;. So that's esi; er-ia-i. y my
p tio. As to your :; econd qu-& t rion we h-v ~ t dr~
the -ss , ue P( 31 Pt-: iti irite rn t-na cut
Our ti on howpver % rL hr rct n t . uti . on th: w e miak e to-t I* L
di-iscs-ior. s 0 tñ i c'ivjn. U we e pleased rco are
r0it'neri( J momen 1, i :.. cwn( is tne poss. biI . v ach,-cv. inq4 1
rt'! inn; CarKo. i.-s based u on ri e f i rir f o u rd a JI
h: at 1h'-re houic be no p'. ace in the out-omie tor Po] cl ari
Ln-iSe CIoseD-*-i5sociatuC. cl i. K him ~ n C-io ir~ ro~ atrocities
cJ thr-nv-rL. when 7They were in power Kampuchoa.
. OU RNAL : T T P rime Mi n istu.-, wh at S De Ci. ilz:
add it press ure put on OECLD type orgqan sal. . ils AsJLZa
;, id the Kc . i actually ' bring the groupi-as I-ike C: ai rn~ s
-*; roup aiready tiqht ig fire?
P. M: 4e I. l obviously it would nczve withinI it c tiona.
strenz;!-: h, addi. t'conal mrem'ber: Qjp*-r as in tthe Cairric Group now.
But z'Aat is only a; ect oiC what I ain t-. z'ak~ n14
-thout. ObViOUiSi. Y rhe sort oi bc" P; i Lhat-zutupaa
sucqqes'& ion and I rervat not as a t-rescription would have
i:-, rcoctarit excharige in f ormaz i on funcztions whichi wouid be of
us. e to overy member ofthat group. But I finci it difricult
to 6elieve that if we were abli; to get groi4. ing of these
' iatlons in thi--reg in wr--i. h is a-3 we all know the. cats
gro! 4-Lnci gro-UD, one which coristitutces in its coiJlecciveecon
-nnic Cactitl . he nairority of the world's pro,-iuct. ioll and
nrea~ nqproportion ol h world*-trade, but it. jc not
goin, i to h. ave an increasedri~ t in ditscussic-ris with urp
drd with th United ! ttt s seeins to ! be logi. ca -i t expecttha-
' th-aL wouid be ' Lhe cjse.
* URNAr, 1?:-Covid, Asia trrm a trading ' group Lconger thiri
America anu-the Euroocaii m--, munjties.
P M: 11l -t depends on what you're alk iriq ou;
" 1JRA. * ST Trading bc

PM: Trading bloc. Well if you look at the facts of
production and trade the region thar I am talking about at
the present time provides more than half of the production.
It's larger than the other two and in terms of trade is going
to be, is already, the most important area and will be
increasingly so. So if you just look in aggregates and
production and trade it can be more significant. But I don't
want to approach these issues in terms of saying we are
bigger, stronger, got more stick than you. I mean it is that
sort of attitude which is counter-productive at the moment.
We are seeing the relationships between the United States and
Europe deteriorate into that sort of situation now and not
only the general discussions but now its degenerating more
particularly as a result of the argument they are having over
the hormones issue that Americans ace saying well we are
going to) in retaliation to you stopping the access of our
meat, we are going to stop an equivalent or greater
equivalent amount of your product-coming into our country.
It's this concept of who is the more powerful, who can use
the greater stick to hit the other one which is precisely
the sort of thing that we want to avoid.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you have a time frame within
which the Asia Pacific Group might begintrealise T mean
should we wait to the end of the Uruguay Round talkinq
two years, three years.
PM: Well its artificial to put time frames on it. The
sensible and intelligent way of looking at it is that we
ought to process as quickly as possible, I believe, the
consultative mechanisms, the sounding out of the countries in
the region as to how they want to see our forms of
co-operation increase including a consideration of the type
of model that I have talked about. Now on that process I
have said that I would hope that by the end of this year we
could have a ministerial type meeting on that. It is not an
issue which can be rushed because you have not only the
question of individual perspectives and perceptions but also
you have the existence of ASEAN and the members of ASEAN will
want to consider their attitude to this issue in relationship
to what their membership of ASEAN means. So quite clearly
the processes of discussion, preparation, if there is overall
a positive response to the concept will take the best part of
this year to get towards a productive ministerial type
meeting. Now while that's going on you have got the process
under the adjourned Montreal meeting, if I can put it that
way, with the agreement that there will be a meeting in
Geneva in April. Now between now and April a lot of
discussions are going on. For my part I have written strong
letters to President Bush and to the major political leaders
in Europe and have put a very hard line to them as to the
obligation which rests upon them to use this time between now
and April to produce a more productive result. Because what
you have got to understand is; that a consideraole amount of
progress has been made in the Uruquay Round discussions.

Agreements, the basis of agreem~ ent has been reached on Pleven
out of the fifteen heads and the ? our that are ieft with
agriculture, textiles and safeguards and intellectual
property, those tour out ot the iifteen disagreement 3re
holding up agreement on the eleven areas. So there is a very
strong incentive for intelligent leadership around tne world
to make use of this period between now anda April. Now
obviously if good sense prevails against the more pessimistic
s. cen~ ario thlat some people have been recently projectin t: h en
the type of pressures and thinking that would ba going into
our regional perceptions would be different. So to put a
timetable on the possible emergence of some bloc is n~ ot
really the right way to approach it. 1 want to see the work
done on this region~ al concept becaus. e whatever assumption you
make about the outcome of the NNCN Round there is a role and
purpose for this regional grouping. it may nave ior the most
pessimistic scenario another purpose but you won't know that
until quite a way down the track.
JOURNALST: Prime Minister, there's specu: lation about a
potential Australian role in settlement in Kampouchea, so
do you think Australia should be involved in som: e way or
another, and how do yiou see that kind of involvement, what
role, and thirdly his it arisen in any discussions you have
had with Thai leaders here?
PM: Aust: ralia should have a role an this condition. We are
qualified, we are part of the region and we have a continuing
well established interest, but we should have a role if we
are wanted. Australia has never taken the view, ana
certainly under my leadership, hasn't taken the view that
here we are whether it be here or the Middle East or
somewhere else, our name's Australia shift over we are going
to come and fix it up that's not our approach. We do have
a legitimate interest and if we are wanted then we will be
prepared and happy to play a role. You ask what sort Of 3
oie, well the qluestion which precedes that is that the
participants in the discussions that are goin; an and the
various strands of discussion. As you know there are many.
There's the discussions between Vietnam and China, there's
the discussions between the Soviet Union and China, there's
discussions between Thailand and Laos and Cambodia and
Vietnam and there is the JIM meetings. I mean you have got
to understand there's a whole number of streams of
discussions going on. Now out ot those discussions if it
emerges that, if we could term it, the major directly
involved parties want Australia in, then we'll be in. Now
you ask what would the role be. You can't answer that
question because the parties haven't answered the question
themselves. There is as you know a difference of view
between whether at one extreme you would have a military
peacekeeping force or at the other extreme a totally unarmei
body limited entirely to a monitoring process of the
elections. Now therefore what role Australia would have must
be an outcome of what sort of agreement is reached on the
role of what is now, ini the absence of a final agreement,

called an international control mechanism. I mean the
concept of a peacekeeping force, that phrase has been put
aside and the control commission is put aside and they have
used this general phrase, mechanism. They have got to put
content into what they want the mechanism to be and what
function there is for it to be because before I can answer
your question, what will Australia's role be?
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the Foreign Minister has said he
doesn't think Australia should put an armed force in. Do you
agree wit that view?
PM: Well prima facie that would be the obvious Australian
position. You prefer positions where you don't have armed
personnel involved. Now neither the Foreign Minister nor I
would rule out if you had agreement that there was a need for
some component of that type, we would obviously consider
that. but our preference would be for . n involvement which
was not of that type. But we are committed to playing a
positive and constructive role in the process, we have made
that clear and in the discussions that I have had already at
this point it seems to be very clear that there is a desire
among the participants, as far an I can see, for an
Australian presence.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Australian dollar
Senator Button says the economic fundamentals indicate that
the dollar should not continue to rise. Is that. a view that
you endorse?
PM: Well I tend on these questions to basically conduct my
discussions and express my views within the Government
framework. I certainly intend to do that and I certainly
don't intend to aive some exposition on what's happening to
the SA from the Oriental Hotel in Bangkok.
JOURNALIST: Senator Evans has said that he is concerned
about the plight of the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.
Also your hosts have a lot of Vietnamese and other refugees,
Kampuchean refugees in Thailand. Is Australia prepared to be
more flexible in accepting refugees?
PM: I don't think the question needs lo be put to Australia
about whether we need to be more flexible. The simple
indisputable and accepted fact Internationally is that on a
per capita basis Australia has done more in accepting
refugees than any other country, including the United States.
So that's the actual figure. We've done more. Our
record is outstanding. Therefore I don't think we need to be
talking about doing more. What we are doing is conducting
sensible discussions with countries in the region, and it has
certainly risen in my discussions here that there needs to be
a fully involved internationl conference this year. That
will be held we believe it looks as though it will be the
middle of the year, probably in Geneva. We'll be there, it
looks as though Vietnam will be there and we want to see out

of that international conference the achievement of the
objectives which sensibly everyone has in mind. That is, to
have to the extent that there's going to be departures from
Vietnam, that they be orderly and acceptably organised, that
the pressures of first asylum that have been pressing so
much, particularly upon Thailand, are eased and made
acceptable. Those are the sorts of things that need to be
worked out in such an international conference and Australia
will be prepared to play its part in that conference. We've
said so and we do that from a position of great strength i. n
terms of our record. We don't have to talk about being more
flexible or more generous. No-one has been as generous as we
have.

JOURNALIST: Do you think it's time as the Treasurer suggests
for middle class Australians to give up the idea of having
homes hiV swimming pools and Hills hoists?
PM: I think on my reading of what's happened that the
Treasurer has been somewhat unfairly beaten up on this issue
not that he's a poor defenceless fellow, he can look after
himself as you know. But just let me make this point, simply
that we live in a rapidly changing world now in which for
some people, and just put in terms of the interests and
preferences of people, that for a lot of people the concept
of having access to medium, higher density relatively inner
city housing, for a lot of people, has a greater relative
attraction than building a long way out further away from
place of work. That's not a question of Paul Keating's
opinion or Bob Hawke's opinion and it just is a fact of life.
For a lot of people that. is the case. It is the case that
the attitudes of a number of regulatory agencies, including
local governments, are rooted in a more historical
conventional view of what the nature of preferences are. Now
to the extent that what the Treasurer has said is opening up
discussion about the desirability of looking at facilitating
more of that type of housing which would be attractive to a
lot of Australians then that's a good thing. It looks as
though on what Mr Greiner has now announced that it's had
precisely that effect. So this is not a question of saying
that the dream of those who do desire. who have the
preference of a block of their own, that's that's
disappeared. It's just a realistic thing to acknowledge that
for a lot of people the historical aspiration of that
separate block may not be as attractive in these days as
having access to attractive or higher density type
accommodation closer to the city. So that's a perfectly sane
thinq to have on the table.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, getting back to the Khmer Rouge. If
the effective . leadership of the Khmer Rouge is rejected in
advance by Phnom Penh, how can there be a political role for
the Khmer Rouge and the second part of that question is your
foreign minister said that if aid were cut to the Khmer Rouge
that they would fade away and cease to be a threat. Is that
not a little bit naive and even if it took five or ten years
for the Khmer Rouge to fade away, wouldn't hundreds if not
thousands of people still die?
PM: These are precisely the questions which are being
discussed now at the various levels that I talked about
before, including the discussions between the Soviet Union
and China, and China and Vietnam and the other strands that
I'm talking about. It would be quite ridiculous for me or
for anyone else to give you an unequivocal statement as to
what the impact would be in the areas that you talk about
because you can't be certain of this. Certainly I can't.
But what you can be certain of is that the parties directly
involved are now getting closer, much closer towards
accepting that there can be no outcome which will allow the
possibility of the Khmer Rouge resuming a position of
dominance. That is not something that has to be forced for
instance upon the Chinese who have been the most substantiai
supporters and supplier of arms to the Khmer Rouge. They

iccept that position. So what has got to be worked out is
how, for those elements of the Khmer Rouge that to the
participants are acceptable as part of the process, how they
are integrated into the outcome. What seems to be accepted
is that there can be an identification of a number, the
number not being certain yet, but ot a number of leaders of
the Khmei Rouge who simply are not acceptable. There is some
difference as to what that number is but you're not in
different ball parks of argument. There will need to be in
the discussions, in the negotiations, a way of quarantining
the unacceptable figures. That doesn't mean that for the
faction there cannot be seen to be a place. Now that's
precisely one of the central issues that's involved in all
the discussions that are going on and I get the impression,
if 1 can put it this way, from the very generously detailed
briefing that I have been given both by the Prime Minister
and Foreign Minister Siddhi that they have optimism that this
precise issue is capable of being worked out. If it is then
the second part of your question is non-operative. They are
not going to in other words agree to an outcome which leaves
open the possibility of some return to the atrocities and
barbarities of the past.
JOURNALIST: What role do you see for Prince Sihanouk and do
you think he'll go to the Jakarta talks?
PM: I li. ke tne phrase that was used to me yesterday, I see
it was in the press, that when the boat finally pulls out the
Prince is usually aboard. I see that it is still the
position from all the discussions I've had and reports I've
received there is fairly common ground that Prince Sihanouk
retains a posi. tion of centrality in the perceived outcome.
He was somewhat off-put, if we can put it that way, by the
recent reception here of the other participants in
the CGDK grouping that came to Bangkok that upset him a
little bit. But Im aware that the Prime Minister of
Thailand has a long history of close personal friendships and
relationships with Prince Sihanouk. There is no lasting
damage that has been done by that episode at all. Their
relationships are close. So I think in any way you look at
it, given the perceptions of all the major parties, Sihanouk
will continue to have a central role. There still seems to
be some possibility that he will be attending the JIM Two
meeting. JOURNALIST: The Treasurer Mr Keating has said that Australia
can be a spring board into Asia and now he's raised the idea
of a regional OECD, yet Australian investment in a number of
countries in Asia is actually quite slight. I wonder, do you
think Australia can justifiably claim to be a member of the
regional economy?
PM: Yes indeed we can, simply by looking at the statistics
because the greater proportion of our trade and economic
relationships and a substantial proportion of our total
overseas investment is in the region by any statistical test
you apply, whether it's trade or investment, we are part of
the region. Now my concern which I've been expressing since
I ve become Prime Minister is that we've got to do more, and
the phrase I've used is to become enmeshed in the region, and

what we have done in the period since 1983 is very very
significant. The degree of enmeshment is remarkably greater
than it was. it has been a varigated performance when you
look at it country by country and here in Thailand I have
expressed a view, and I take this opportunity of saying it
again, that I don't think the Australian business community
has been quite as aggressive in an acceptable sense of that
word and thrusting in taking advantage of possible
opportunities here as it may have been. I think therefore
that the agreement that I've reached with the Prime Minister
here to set a doubling of the two-w.. ay trade between us within
the next three years is achievable. It may appear ambitious
but to lift it from the A$ 630 million to 1.3 by the end of
1991 seems to me achievable. Certainly if you look at the
particular projects which are available for Australian
participation I don't think there's any reason wny we won't
achieve that objective. importantly, the actual agreements
that we have arrived at here to process an overall economic
co-operation agreement, the concessional financing agreement,
to go on with the double tax agreement negotiations, I think
that in regard to Thailand it means that now as a result of
my visit and the very productive discussions I've had with
the Prime Minister that we will undoubtedly see a boost to
involvement here and that will not only be in trade but in
two-way investment. Australia has got to really complete the
process from the rhetoric to the fact and the change of
attitude. As I've said, for too long and under previous
governments the phrase was there we're part of Asia, but the
tough hard attitudinal change wasn't there. It is coming now
and I'm as certain as I am of anything that the process of
the enmeshment of the Australian economy with Asia is going
to gather momentum because that is something which is
manifestly in our interests in Australia and without
overstating our capacities it is something which is certainly
in Lhe interests of Asia.
JOURNALIST: There was a report yesterday from Associated
Piess in Chiang Mai that they're expecting a record bumper
crop of heroin out of the golden triangle this year. Is that
a concern to you and will you be talking to the Thai
authorities about how to ensure that that crop doesnt get
through PM: It is a matter of concern. We have talked about these
issues. I've given my assurance to the Prime Minister and to
his ministers that Australia's involvement with the Office of
the Narcotic Control Board here in Bangkok will be carried
on. [ t is a very effective concrete way in which we have been
able to assist in their program of creating a more efficient
policing body. There is no question but that we will
continue our assistance in that form and also the
co-operation between our police forces. So we have that
commitment, we've got the runs on the board in terms of
actual co-operation, both in terms of financial assistance
and in terms of inter-operability of our police torces. All
those things will continue. I must say I will be interested
to see when I go up there the, operation of His Majesty's

concept and program of trying to develop alternative crops
and avenues of economic activity for the people involved in
the production of these crops. That's another aspect of the
approach that can be adopted.
JOURNALIST: Could you discuss Australia's assistance to the
project of building the Thai-Laos bridge that you discusssed
with Prime Minister Chatichai yesterday.
PM: The Prime Minister expressed the view that it would be
good if Australia would pick up this project. It was one of
those areas of meetings betwoen Prime Ministers where the
other Prime Minister, that is me, I also thought it would be
good. So we agreed. Now the suggestion is that it would
cost about S27 million that's in US terms without a rai. l
and perhaps $ 31 million with the rail. We've accepted that
W. e will undertake the responsibility, the design and the
construction of the bridge. It's understood that there will
need to be further detailed analyses done of what it
involves. Obviously we need the agreement of Laos as well
1 can't imagine that that will not be forthcoming. We'll
undertake that work and then on the understanding that the
outcome of those studies will validate the order of, not
necessarily absolutely precisely, but the order of costings
that have been put to us, then we'll go ahead with it. It'!;
suggested that it's something that will be done over a flive
year period. As I've said, this is something that will be
intrinsically desirable in helping to increase communication
and trade between two countries that historically have had
such a relationship that's been characterised by conflict.
So it will be important intr-insically, and as I've said, I
think symbolically it's also important in being part of
transforming a zone of war into a zone of peace. It's
something that I'm very pleased that we in Australia are able
to be associated with.
JOURNALIST: ' What is the state of your Government's relations
now with the regime in Burma arid how do you see them
* deve loping?
PM: I would think it's most correctly put by saving that We
have maintained a presence there which seeks to be informed
to protect Australian interests and interests of others who
will be associated with us. We don't see ourselves as a
major player in the events of Burma although it is the case
that we have a fairly significant program of aid and
assistance to Burma. We'ye made it clear that we want to see
a situation in which human rights are respected and in which
there is an opportunity for free and fair election in which
the will of the people of Burma can be reflected. That's the
stance that we adopt while we accept we are not a major
player in the events there.
JOUJRNALIST: In your speech last night you reaffirmed
Australia's stance on immigration policy. In your talks in
recent days has the question of the debate in AuIstralia over
Asian immigration arisen and have you been able to gzauge
whether there s been any longer term damage between our
relations as a result of that debate?

it
PM: The matter has arisen but as you would expect, given the
politeness of our hosts it's not an issue that they pursue.
But in the discussions that have come out it's clear that
they welcome the unequivocal statements that I make on behalf
of the Australian Government about our commitment to
non-discriminatory policies. Just anecdotely may I say that
one of my staff before I came here was travelling out in the
country in Thailand here and was told in respect of certain
Thai students that they had been going to come and I think
there were tour of them were going to be coming to
Australia. They'd heard about this debate and it changed
their decision to go to Australia and instead have gone to
North America. So any suggestion that there hasn't been some
understanding fairly generally through the region about. the
debate in Australia is simply not the case. The knowledge is
there and part of what I'm about, why I'm here, and I've said
also in Korea, is to reiterate the position and that is that
the past practice of the ' 70s and the ' 80s of
non-discrimination, that practice is irreversible. The White
Australia policy will, as I've put it, stay where it belongs
in the history books.
JOURNALIST: You spoke before about Australian investment in
Thailand. There's been two big attempts by Australian
companies recently to get into Thailand, both have failed
rather dismally in controversial circumstances. Did you take
this up with the Thai Government?
PM: We did not go to the details of the failed bids but in
the major area of telecommunications, ministers went out of
their way to say that there were very very extensive
investment programs and expansion programs on the drawing
board and that they look forward to successful Australian
bidding in those areas. So I would have to say that from our
point of view despite the unfortunate fact that we were
unsuccessful in the past it does seem absolutely to be the
case that our position in regard to the future is not only
not prejudiced but that the Thai authorities are looking
forward anxiously to Australian participation in the bidding
for these further contracts. There is some anticipation I
think that we've got a good chance of being successful.
JOURNALIST: Just one quick domestic one. What are your
feelings about the West Australian election and have you
spoken to Premier Dowding in the last couple of days?
PM: It will come as no surprise to you in answer to the
first part of your question as what my feelings are. I have
a great hope that Dowding will win because that's not only in
the intersts of the Party in the state and federally, but
more imporantly it's' overwhelmingly in the interests of the
West Australian people. My second feeling is that it will be
desperately close. Thirdly, have I spoken to him in the last
couple of days, no. I am here in the region advancing the
causes of Australia and of the region and that's fully taking
up my time.

JOURNALIST: At the banquet last night you said that
Australia is ready to play a part in any restoration of peace
in Cambodia. 1 understand that you partly answered the
question but I would be interested in what role that would
involve. Would Australia consider staffing the international
control mechanism of funding and in what way
PM: I really have answered that question. You can't be
specific about what role you'll play until the parties
themselves have agreed on what the role of the mechanism is.
' heyve got to use the ,. ord mechanism now as a generic
because that is reflective of the fact that there's still a
lot of discussion and argument as to what the role will be.
So I can't say what our role will be in something the role of
wihich itself generally hasn't been determined. The important
point is that we are prepared to do reasonably anything that
the parties would want us to do together with others I mean
Australia is not assuming sole responsibility in these
matters but to do what would sensibly be requested of us.
* Now that could include specialist staff who had experience or
the capacity to involve the monitoring of elections and we
have a lot of elections in Australia, too many, you can see
that people are preoccupied with them so I don't see that
we'd have any trouble in providing people who would be very
competent in supervising elections. I could send along a few
sharp scrutineers I can tell you. So we could do that. The
processes of monitoring the withdrawal, ensuring that the
withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces was undertaken, this is
something which again we would have a capacity with others to
do. obviously in providing these forms of personnel it
requires finance. We understand that if we're going to be
part of this exercise it will involve a financial outlay as
far as we are concerned. But we've had a long standing
involvement and commitment to try and torsee a peaceful
outcome of this tragedy. Now that we are accelerating
toaether towards the possibility of that resolution we're not
going to be parsimonious from our point of view if we're
* asked in ensuring that we make an effective contribution.
ends