PRIME MRAINISTE
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, HOTEL ROSSI, VANUATU
31 JULY 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Can you tell us about your meeting with Mr
Namilau this morning?
PM: I can tell you something about it. Obviously there
were some parts of our conversation which
confidential between us. But I covered a range of
matters with him as he did with me. We talked about
issues that are peculiarly within the province of Papua
New Guinea. We talked about some bilateral matters and
we talked about some regional matters. As far as the New
Guinea area was concerned, Papua New Guinea, obviously
Bougainville took up a fair amount of our time. I
clearly can't go to all the details of that. He was kind
enough to give me the most up-to-date information about
the talks on the New Zealand naval ships. May I take
this opportunity in front of this media gathering to pay
again, as I have before, my tribute to the Government of
New Zealand for providing this facility. I obviously
can't go to what he told me in detail about that, but
what is clear to me is that the Government of Papua New
Guinea is committed to trying to make these talks work.
But it's going to take two to tango. There's got to be
an equal commitment on the part of the representatives
from Bougainville. As I understand it the
representatives from Bougainville put fairly specific
positions to the representatives of the Government of
Papua New Guinea yesterday. They will be responded to by
the Government of Papua New Guinea today. I hope that
there may be some possibility of the talks continuing to
a successful conclusion but on the basis of what I know
so far it's a very difficult situation there in those
talks. But I can't go any further than that. On other
matters, I discussed with the Prime Minister, the
decisions that have been recently made by the
international community to provide additional financial
facilities and economic assistance to the Government and
indicated that we had been pleased to be able to be
identified with that. The Prime Minister expressed
confidence that they would be able to overcome their
economic difficulties at the same time acknowledging that
this was not an easy road in front of them and there had
to be an appropriate exercise of restraint within Papua
New Guinea if they were going to meet that objective. We
discussed my visit to Papua New Guinea which will take
place at the beginning of September which I'm looking
forward to. And I'm going to have the opportunity of
getting out of Port Moresby and having a visit around the
country with the Prime Minister. I'm looking forward to
that very much. He also asked me to talk with him about
the situation in New Caledonia and I was able to share
specific thoughts with him about that, as with the
question of Johnston Atoll. So without being exhaustive,
that's the range of the matters that was dealt with.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, was there also some discussion of
specific help Australia might give in rehabilitating
Bougainville once some sort of consensus is reached?
PM: No, we didn't go to that because the Prime Minister
knows that we have a very real interest in trying to see
that matter resolved. He knows that if they are able to
reach a peaceful resolution of this matter that we will
stand ready within the general framework of our
assistance to Papua New Guinea to be of assistance there.
But the real immediate issue is getting a resolution and
that's not easy.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you now expect the
meeting you hope to have with Ratu Mara tomorrow to go
ahead or has Australia's description of the new Fiji
constitution as being ' seriously flawed' led to the
possibility of Fiji cancelling these talks?
PM: Well I don't know at this stage. All I've had
reported to me is some suggestion that the Prime Minister
may not wish to have those talks. That has not been
conveyed to me. I haven't yet had the opportunity of
speaking to him. I was going to try and take an
opportunity at the morning tea break but others were
speaking with the Prime Minister and it wasn't, I didn't
have a courteous opportunity to speak with him. I want
to do that if I can today. So I really haven't got any
more comment to make on it at this point. I've heard
these alleged reports that they don't want to meet. I
don't know that that is the position. I probably will
know before the end of the day and perhaps when we talk
again subsequently we can therefore talk about it on a
more informed basis.
JOURNALIST: To what extent is Australia and New Zealand
upon Fiji become a little isolated rest of
Melanesia and Polynesia?
PM: Well I don't really know what the relative positions
are between Australia and New Zealand and Polynesian
countries or the Melanesian countries. Because as you'll
appreciate, firstly, Fiji is not on the Forum agenda.
And to this point it certainly didn't arise at the
Retreat nor has it been raised with me by any of the
Forum countries. So to the extent there was any
discussion about this, if there is it will be between the
Fijian Prime Minister and myself. But, as I say in a
previous answer to the question, I'm not really in the
position to be definitive about that at this stage.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the Johnston Atoll issue,
there's been a lot of argy bargy I guess you'd call it
from various groups, Greenpeace etc. What chances do you
think Australia and New Zealand have of persuading some
of the Pacific Island Countries that it is
environmentally safe?
PM: Let me make this point first. I haven't come here
with a brief that dogmatically I am going to tell the
Forum countries what the right position is. We thought
we had the responsibility, given the fact that we have
available to us a range of scientific capacities which by
definition aren't available to our friends in the Forum,
that we should have this issue examined by these
authorities. Now I want to make it clear that no brief,
no Government brief was given to those authorities to
which we remitted this question. In other words, we
didn't say look, our position as a Government is that we
are in favour of this, give us a report which justifies
that position. These authorities, the CSIRO, and the
Materials Research Laboratory DASET looked at this
without such riding instruction. Therefore my position
is one based on my assessment of what I know to be
objective assessments that have been made by those
authorities. I repeat, and it's very important I know
the Australian journalists will understand that, the way
we operate in Australia but it's very important for
everyone else to understand that that was a position and
is a position. Now I have regarded my responsibility in
coming therefore to this Forum to share with my Forum
colleagues that information. Without going to the detail
of that information, it is information and an assessment
which leads me to the conclusion that taking all factors
into account it is appropriate that the limited proposals
in regard to the Johnston Atoll should proceed. And when
I say limited proposals let's be quite clear what those
limits are. That is that the facilities there should be
used in regard to, firstly, the material which is
currently on Johnston Atoll. Secondly, from the Federal
Republic of Germany. And third any other material that
may still be in the Pacific. And that it is appropriate
that those materials should be disposed of there under
the process which is involved. Now I know that there are
those who have a different view. That's life. It'll be
a question of me putting the material and Mr Palmer
putting his view. I would hope that our colleagues can
be persuaded on the basis of this material. I finally
make the point that as far as Australia is concerned, we
come to this in a rather special situation because I
think it can be said that and I think it is recognised
internationally that no country probably has done more
in the area of trying to have established an
international convention against chemical weapons than
has Australia. Now we've done that in a number of ways.
In the continuing work of the Committee of Disarmament in
Geneva. Secondly with our regional initiative. Thirdly,
very importantly, with the international conference that
was held in Canberra at the end of last year, the first
of its kind, which brought governments and the chemical
industry together. So you can see the basis on which I
say Australia is uniquely involved in this area. Because
we have pushed so hard to get its international
convention the question of the safe destruction of
chemical weapons is for Australia an issue of singular
importance. All our involvement and experience in this
area means, I think you can understand, that we are not
going to bring to this issue some cavalier treatment.
The issue is far too fundamental and of continuing
importance to Australia to do that.
JOURNALIST: Part of the nervousness though concentrates
on whether or not the US will stick to that promise of
not sending their large cache of weapons to Johnston
Atoll once the process is finished. How confident are
you that that's going to be the case?
PM: I'm very confident it will stand. Let me take this
opportunity of being quite dogmatic on this point. We
will be saying to our United States friends that the
position that we're adopting on this matter, and
particularly our espousal of this position within the
Forum, is based upon that proposition that that
commitment will be adhered to. And indeed we have
confidence that it will be. We have no reason to doubt
it because there is the intention to go ahead with the
construction of eight sites in the United States, on
mainland United States. We believe that the United
States would adhere to that position. We will certainly
expect them to.
JOURNALIST: If you're confident about the report, why
not make it public?
PM: Well it may be that that will be done. But I'm
certainly going to make the substance of the reports
available to my friends here in the Forum. We're not
just going to put them in our pocket.
JOURNALIST: Why not make them generally public?
PM: Well, I suppose it's a matter of courtesy really.
If we've got on the agenda with our friends here this
item, I mean it might be the courteous thing to do and
I'm always courteous that they will be made available
to our friends here. The question then of their
publication is a matter we'll look at. I mean speaking
for myself, I don't see any problem about that. But I'll
want to discuss it with some of my colleagues. But I see
nothing to be afraid of in releasing them.
JOURNALIST: Are the reports compiled from only US data
or has Australian data been collected as well?
PM: Obviously the US data was very important. But let
me make this point, unless there is any doubt about it
anywhere, that there is a proven competence amongst the
Australian Government's advisers in these areas. In
particular I've referred to the Materials Research
Laboratory. Let me say that that Materials Research
Laboratory is a designated facility by the United Nations
for the analysis and examination of alleged chemical
weapons use. That is the status of that body. The head
of the Laboratory's Protective Chemistry Division, Dr
Peter Dunn, has actually carried out investigations of
chemical weapons use including the question of the
disposal of chemical weapons on behalf of the Secretary-
General of the United Nations. So you can see that
people that have been involved in these analyses and are
making these recommendations are people with a competence
recognised at the highest international level. Let me
say that as well as using the material supplied by the
United States, they also considered material that was
supplied by Greenpeace and by other independent agencies.
Also it wasn't just a question of looking at data but
during their work they had the opportunity to, an
extended opportunity I might say, to review the US
official data and they had the opportunity of questioning
on this matter. So I believe that everything was done
which possibly could be done by these independent bodies,
and I repeat, doing their work without any riding
instructions from the Government.
JOURNALIST: When you say you're going to release the
substance of the reports, does that mean you won't be
releasing the full reports?
PM: Well it may be that we will. All I'm saying is that
at this point I want to have some further discussion with
my colleagues because I don't want just to sit here
unilaterally and say yes that's what will happen. I want
to have some discussion. But I'm simply saying that my
predisposition is towards releasing them.
JOURNALIST: The full reports?
PM: I would think so. I'd need to take some advice and
have some discussion of it but that's my predisposition,
yes. JOURNALIST: What CSIRO comment on the fact that the
environmental impact statement from the US army actually
says that they will not have to comply with the US
Federal Clean Air Act and the US Federal Land
Conservation Act?
PM: All I can say is that, having read the CSIRO report,
it was quite clear that the CSIRO report comes down on
the favour of the proposition that the methods that are
being employed there represent the best of techniques
that are available when, taking all the considerations
into account, it should be supported.
JOURNALIST: Is the Australia-New Zealand position so
identical that you agree with Mr Palmer that you would
eventually like to see that facility disappear so that it
no longer acted as an attraction for people who might
want to dispose of other wastes?
PM: The answer to that question follows from what I said
earlier, that there are three categories of material that
will be involved in the facility at Johnston Atoll. I
repeat, what's on the atoll now, material that's still in
other parts of the Pacific and material from the Federal
Republic of Germany. Our view is that that and no other
should be the subject of the processes there.
JOURNALIST: So does that mean the New Zealand-Australian
positions are identical?
PM: I gather from the discussions that I've had with the
Prime Minister of New Zealand that our positions are
identical. But I'm not here to speak for the Prime
Minister of New Zealand. I think you're going to have
the pleasure of questioning him in about five minutes or
SO. It's appropriate that if you want to know the New
Zealand position you ask the Prime Minister of New
Zealand. JOURNALIST: Within the limitations that you ' ye just
outlined about the use of Johnston Atoll, will you be
pushing for, or seeking to have an expression of support
for that chemical weapons disposal process in the final
Forum communique?
PM: Well it's on the agenda here. I'll be putting my
view as to what I think is the appropriate position.
I'll listen to what my friends in the Forum have to say.
In the light of all the discussion I'll be then, within
the Forum, expressing what I think would be the
appropriate Forum position to be put. We'll see what
happens in the debate about that. But clearly I haven't
come here just to say well that's what we think, and
leave it at that. Because I believe that we have been
given advice which is objective and appropriate as a
position to be adopted. I will be saying that I think
that ought to be the Forum position but I want to hear
what the others have to say.
JOURNALIST: At this stage does it appear that it's just
you and, well you think New Zealand is behind you, do you
think it's just you and New Zealand against the rest of
the Forum members or do you know from discussions that
there are other Pacific Island Countries that support
your view?
PM: Not all the Forum leaders were at the Retreat so I
can't answer that question with precision. I would have
to say on the evidence of the Retreat that there were
question marks and serious question marks being raised by
a significant number of our colleagues. But that was a
very preliminary stage. I haven't had the opportunity of
hearing a detailed exposition of our scientific reports.
So what their view will be at the end of the debate I
really can't say.
JOURNALIST: Did the US ask Australia to assist in
reassuring South Pacific Forum members
PM: There was no specific request to me. I have no
doubt that in the discussions that have taken place at
other levels between officials and so on that there would
have been a view put that they thought that this was the
right position, that they hoped we'd be able to support
it. But I've had no direct request to that effect. I
don't operate on this basis. I mean no-one determines
Australia's position for it. We're not here as an
intermediary for the United States or anyone else. I
make up my mind on the basis of material put before me,
whether it's on this issue or any other that's here, or
like on the discussion that we've had this morning in the
Forum about dialogue partners. I make up my mind on the
basis of what I think is the correct position and then
put that. I'm not here, as I say, as a surrogate for or
an intermediary for anyone.
JOURNALIST: On the question of the move at the Forum
this morning for Taiwan to join the post-Forum dialogue,
do you have a comment on this and does it complicate
Australia's one-China policy?
PM: No, I'm very pleased to say that the position that I
espoused on this is the one that has been embraced by the
Forum. I made the point that I think it's a fundamental
principle of the Forum that the Forum doesn't seek to
impose decisions on its members which can infringe the
foreign policy rights of individual members. The facts
are that as far as the Forum is concerned there are some
countries, like for instance ourselves, New Zealand,
Vanuatu, who recognise one government of China, the
Peoples Republic, mainland China. There are others who
have not adopted that position, as is their right. it
was therefore my judgement, and the view that the Forum
adopted, that it was not appropriate to make a decision
in terms of inviting Taiwan as a dialogue partner which
would in fact impinge upon and derogate from the rights
of individual members. Rather I think they've adopted
the eminently sensible position to say well let this
issue be examined in the next twelve months and
particularly let it be examined in the light of whether
APEC may in fact find some formula which can accommodate
acceptable positions. That seems to me to be the right
approach. It's certainly the one which I advocated.
JOURNALIST: From your knowledge of the American position
on Johnston Island, do you believe that they would be
prepared to reconsider their plans if the Forum didn't
like them or is it a fait accompli?
PM: There are two things that have to be said which are
relevant to that. Firstly that there is a testing period
which has to be followed and we would be and the second
is related to it that I certainly would be advocating
that the Forum send a scientific mission to the facility
to examine it. Let me say this, that if out of that
testing period and the examination of the facility by a
Forum scientific group, if out of those processes any
serious question were to arise as to the adequacy and
safety of the operation of the facility then it would be
right that the Forum, including Australia, should press
strongly on the United States that they should not go
ahead, at least should not go ahead without modification.
That would be Australia's position and I presume it would
be that of the Forum. But whether, I mean they have said
that a) that this testing period is going ahead, and b)
have indicated that they would welcome a Forum scientific
mission. I would expect, as I say, if out of those two
processes serious questions were raised then they should
be asked to consider modifications. I don't believe that
they're going to be doing those two things without some
serious purpose. There's no point in having a testing
period or inviting a scientific mission if you're not
going to allow the possibility emerging out of those
things for some modification.
JOURNALIST: Can I just go back to Bougainville for a
second. I think you mentioned earlier that you saw some
difficulties in the negotiating process. Are you able to
say what those difficulties are that you see and on
balance are you optimistic about
PM: The answer to that Glenn is yes I'm able to but I'm
going to because the information that I have is in
confidence at this stage. It would not be appropriate.
JOURNALIST: You very benevolently last night broke your
London convention to give us a short statement on the
Hogg initiative
PM: It was a very very brief and considered and complete
breaking of it to which nothing is to be added.
JOURNALIST: Not even to give us any indication
PM: Not even to do anything, not even to your
blandishments. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the Australian scientific
report, would there have been more benefit if that
assessment was made available to Forum nations earlier,
even if it was only last week, so they would have had
more time to examine the details rather than having to do
it at the Forum itself?
.1 9
PM: I think the nature of the reports are such that they
are capable of analysis and understanding reasonably
quickly. JOURNALIST: New Zealand and Australia take a similar
line on issues such as Johnston Atoll and Fiji even
though it's not on the agenda. Do you think the two of
you run the risk of giving the impression that you're
trying to heavy the rest of the members?
PM: Certainly not. If you were able to hear them for the
way we put our contributions, we don't put them in the
sense of trying to heavy. I mean let me make this point,
as I have before, at previous Forums. Again I don't
speak for New Zealand, that's the right and duty of my
friend Geoffrey Palmer. But let me say this for
Australia. We have a line, a difficult line at times,
that we have to walk. That is we are the largest, most
economically powerful, most resource rich country of the
Forum, and that's acknowledged. And I believe that we
have, that there are great responsibilities that flow
from that fact and not the least of those
responsibilities is the obligation that we have to
provide aid in financial terms, in material resource
terms and in personnel terms to the smaller members of
the Forum. That's in my judgement a responsibility and
obligation that we have. The line we have to walk and
I always try and make sure that that line is adhered to
is in accepting that responsibility and then on the other
side not to think that that gives us some right to impose
our views on the Forum. That's a difficult line but it's
one which from 1983 I've steadfastly and assiduously
tried to walk and I hope successfully.
ends
0