PRIME MINISTER
T RAN SCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, QUEEN ELIZABETH 11 SILVER
JUBILEE TRUST FOR YOUNG AUSTRALIANS, YOUTH BUSINESS
INITIATrvE, COBURG 24 FEBRUARY 1989
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
Journalisti Should Simon Crean step down as leader of the
ACTU? Prime Minister: I don't believe so and I can speak with a
certain amount of experience on this I don't think that
there has to be the sort of gap that would be available if
you step down now because the election as I have said could
be as far away as the middle of next year. I have said the
election will be from the latter part of this year until May
or June of next year. I think it will be appropriate that
there are certain activities of the ACTU from which Simon
would disassociate himself and it is quite clear already
for instance that he would not be involved in the wage/ tax
negotiations that we will be having and he and Kelty have an
appropriate sense of understanding in those matters but
there is still many duties in the ACTU presidency which he
will be able to continue to fulfil with great competency and
authority as he has up to this point.
Journalist: Mr Hawker is Simon Crean good enough to
eventually fill your shoes?
Prime Minister: I have said, yes, that I think he would
make a good Prime Minister. No one ever fills anyone elses
shoes they are different. I mean Simon didn't fill my shoes
as the President of the ACTU but that doesn't mean he hasn't
been as good a President. I mean different people do the
Sjob in different ways and I think that Simon has the
V capacity to make an immediate contribution to the good
Government of this country once he comes into the Parliament
and ultimately yes he can be a Prime Minister.
Journalist: Do you think he will replace Mr Keating as the
man most likely to attempt to fill your shoes?
Prime Minister: I have answered that on last Sunday I said
I believe that Paul Keating is still the front runner but it
is going to be good to have a situation and I am sure Paul
agrees with me it im gning to bo good, thai when the time
comes that I do retire, that the Party will have a range of
people to choose from within the immediate sense and to have
a spectrum from whom to think about for a longer period.
Journalists Mr Hawke what is your reaction on the
Indonesian courts decision on the Blenkinsop shooting?
Prime Minister: Let me say these things about that. I can
understand that the family of Mr Blenkinsop would have a
feeling that perhaps the sentence is too lenient, I can
understand that feeling. But let me say this, that on all
the evidence that we have had the Indonesians have conducted
this trial strictly in accordance with the Indonesian legal
processes. You will recall that at the time I made a very
very strong statement that this sort of action that has
taken place can not be accepted and tolerated. And the
Indonesians to their credit have made sure that the
processes normally followed should be followed and indeed in
this case two things can be said. They made sure that a
representative of the Australian Embassy was able to be
present at all times and inripri the prnceedings were open to
foreign reporters beyond the way in which they normally
would be. So I think that there is no basis upon which we
are able to argue that the processes, the Indonesian
processes, haven't been followed and having said that I can
understand some feeling on the part of the Blenkinsop family
0 but Australia is not in a position where we tell other
countries how to run their judici~ al processes. All I can
say is that their normal processes seem to have been
followed. Journalist: so you won't be seeking any sort of an appeal?
Prime Minister: Well, it is not for the Australian
Government to be seeking any sort of appeal. I mean, that
is not the role of Government.
Journalist: mr Hawk. what do you think of the decision to
start work on the pulp mill in Tasmania?
Prime minister: Well let's get it clear they haven't
started work on the mill. As I understand how they have
rationalised what they are doing, they say they have a very
tight timetable to meet what they see as their deadline of
completion by the middle of 1991. And so they have decided
to do some preliminary sort of road work in this period.
Because they say that a sort of period of 3 weeks or so
which will be involved before we would make a decision is
something that ought to be used. Whether they have done
anything or not will not affect our decision. The position
is we have a longstanding agreement with Mr Gray, very
simply says the Tasmanian Parliament will make its decision.
When they have made its decision it will be transmitted to
us then my Ministers involved will make recommendations and
submissions and the Cabinet will consider those and make a
decision and we will make it expeditiously.
JournalistjL So you don't think it improper that the
preliminar-. y wnrk...
Prime Minister: There is nothing improper, it is their
property. They own the property on which they are working
it is a matter for them to make that decision that doesn't
involve any irreversible sort of outcome and it certainly
will be not something we will take into account because they
decided to spend some money on preparing a road. That will
have no bearing on our decision.
Journalist: in other words the risk is on their heads?
Prime Minister: Well yes it is their expenditure. It is a
decision they made, they are perfectly entitled. If you own
an area and you want to start to build a road, well okay
start to build a road. But that won't influence our
decision. Journalist: mr Hawke how do you feel about the number of
places that haven't lowered their flags today?
Prime Mi . nister: Well I am glad you asked me that question,
I was very surprised to read my papers this morning that
Hawke had backed down. Now let me make it quite clear that
when you are Prime minister of this country you don't
izsVVlVg YUU& elf III eVOLy deuiuion made by eVeLy minister
and every department. A decision was taken and was taken by
the minister and the department according to normal
practices. When it was brought to my attention I took the
view that I could understand that in respect of places like
the War Memorial, repatriation hospitals and gardens of
remembrance, that in places like that I could understand the
feeling of concern so while it was approrip ate that on
normal government buildings the convent io'is should be
followed and I insist that they should be. In those places
I see no reason for not giving them the discretion. I can
understand the feelings of people that they wouldn't want in
those places to have the flag at have mast and it was
appropriate that they be given that discretion. So there
was no question of backing down on my part once the issue
was before me I made the decision which I thought and think
is appropriate. Let me make it clear that in doing that I
don't in any way retract from the position which the
Australian community knows full well is my position. And
that is in terms of Australia's welfare now and for future
generations we must understand the reality that Japan is a
major trading partner and it would be a gross dereliction of
duty on the part of anyone in Australia to not
understand that fact and not to do everything we can to
ensure that Australia's opportunties of trade and investment
with Japan should be increased because that is going to be
to the benefit of this country and may I say to the benefit
of the region. Within that framework, however, on this
particular issue in regard to those buildings and places I
don't see any reason why the sensitivities of some
Australians should be upset.
Journalist: will you be working with the opposition to
sLuduu Lhae yiveLLy of youth in Australia
Prime Minister: well as I have said, i am often very
critical of the opposition and Mr Howard and I will continueto
be on many things and I must say unequivocally I welcome
the reaction of Mr Howard that this was not a matter for
party political point scoring and I welcome that and that
will be my attitude as i had cause to say inside here. The
position is one where the whole of Australia must share a
sense of tragedy that there are so many young people who are
in this condition. Let me just make the point in regard to
what I said in the election campaign in 1987 that statement
was made sincerely and is being sincerely fulfilled and it
will be the case that by 1990 there will be no financial
need for any child in Australia to live in poverty. But as
I say you can't by Government see it stop the interaction of
social and personal forces which mean that kids leave home
or are thrown out of home. So what Governments, the
community and the Australian families together have to do to
face u-this problem. Let me remind you as I said yesterday
that we have had a 507% increase in the money that we have
made available for refuges in this country since we have
been in office. There has never been an increase in funding
like we have made. Last October with a Minister I made an
offer of another $ 40 million to the States for additional
funding to help the homeless and those in crisis. So we
will do the sorts of things in a financial way that are
necessary. After we have considered the report in detail I
will then meet and talk with the Premiers, and I hope that
the attitude expressed by Mr Howard will be reflected by the
Governments of either political persuasions and I hope that
together and together with community organisations we can
make some in-road to helping those in this present position
and also if we can to creating a better attitude in the
community so that families where ultimately this
responsibility rests will be in a better situation that we
won't have so many kids in this tragic situation.
Journalist: So what is the forecast for 1990 now?
Prime minister: The forecast for 1990 is as I have put it
and that is, that as a result of the outlays of well over
half a billion dollars additional money which is a result
from my promise of 1987 there will be no financial need for
any child to live in poverty as I have said right from ' 87.
And it really is a very uncomplicated matter and I can't
understand why, and it seems to be a Melbourne problem more
than any other, I don't know whether you have your mental
processes a bit coagulated here, but it is a very
uncomplex situation and I am surprised now that after two
years you can't quite understand it. A Government can make
a promise that it will outlay over half a billion dollars by
increased family allowance supplements so that that money
will be made available into families and there will be no
financial need as a result of that decision for any child to
live in poverty because we would have provided the money to
eliminate that financial need. There was never any
situation in a democratic country where you can say now
having provided that money that there won't be operating in
families either stupidity on the part of parents who are
going to spend it on grog or the races rather than on the
kid or any capacity on the Government to say that the kid is
not going to run away from home or the parents are not going
to throw them out. No Government in a democracy can affect
that situation. I made a promise, which will be delivered,
that there is no financial need for any child to live in
poverty.
0