PRIME MINISTER
16 AUGUST 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
HURST: This is really the first chance we've had to speak
to you since your press conference last Friday and with
events hotting up in the Middle East and Saddam Hussein's
shock peace stir with Iran. How concerned are you at
developments occurring there now?
PM: From the very first moment of the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait I have been acutely aware of the dangers and the
potential for a very serious conflict, Phil. I have
consulted not only with Ministers and then had my decision
endorsed by Cabinet, but we've consulted widely on this
issue. While I have said, Phil, that this is the most
serious decision I have had to take as Prime Minister,
paradoxically in the end it was a very easy decision because
the issues were very straightforward. What I want to see
happen, of course, is the continuation of discussion between
like-minded nations to bring about a situation where Saddam
Hussein will realise that in the interests of his own
people, let alone any other moral considerations, that the
best thing to do, the only thing to do is to withdraw from
Kuwait. If he has some issues with Kuwait, whether it be in
regard to disputed territory or oil, then we're not denying
the right of Iraq to have discussions and mediation on those
issues. But for me and for my Government, and I believe for
the overwhelming majority of Australian people, Phil, it is
simply not acceptable that naked aggression should be
unleashed by one country against a small neighbour and that
they should then proceed to annex that territory into their
own. If the world stands by and allows that to happen we
are inviting a repetition of the disasters of the 1930s.
HURST: Mr Hawke there's been a lot of concern expressed in
talk shows across Australia, certainly on this program and I
understand Gough Whitlam has expressed now concern, that
Australia leapt into the fray too quickly on the heels of
President Bush rather than waiting to take a stand perhaps
suggested by the United Nations.
PM: Well this of course is incorrect. We didn't leap in.
It wasn't a question of me getting a phone call from George
Bush on Friday morning and saying here we go. This matter
had been raised a week earlier within the United States. We
had seriously discussed it, looked at all the implications.
We, of course, had given immediate support to the decision
of the United Nations Security Council to impose
comprehensive sanctions upon Iraq. I received a direct
personal communication, by letter, from the Amir of Kuwait
requesting assistance and I know, and the best advice I have
from our legal resources and from our Department of Foreign
Affairs, those with the competence in this area, is that we
have legal sanction for our action under Section 51 of the
United Nations Charter which contemplates collective
security action in the situation where there is a request
from a member state. Having said that Phil, we have made it
clear that we would like to see a situation where the United
Nations moved to make a decision under Section 42 but we
were not prepared, knowing that we had legal sanction for
doing what we did, we were not prepared to wait for the
drawn out processes that might be involved in getting such a
decision. Because you can't sit by and see a small state
gobbled up then another state threatened and saying oh well
we'll sit by and wait and see what might happen. We weren't
going to allow apprehension to become reality, to see Kuwait
gone, to see Saudi Arabia gone.
HURST: There seems to be a lot of confusion about just how
active a role Australia will take, for instance,
Senator Evans suggesting Australia wouldn't physically
interdict any ships, but would in the instance of Australia
making surveillance of a ship then get the Americans to go
in and do the action.
PM: I am glad you asked this question Phil and I want to
take this opportunity of making quite clear to your
listeners and through them to the rest of Australia
precisely what the situation is. I know there is some quite
muddled commentary in some quarters which says we've sent
of f our ships without knowing precisely what they'll be
doing. Let me make it quite clear as Senator Evans very
articulately has already done. At this stage what has been
determined as being the role of the Australian ships is four
categories of action: identification, we will see that what
the ship is and then when there is identification you have
contact and then interrogation and warning. Now those are
important processes and I can say to you that they have been
identified by the United States as constituting a very
useful role. See there are really three sorts of types of
action which you contemplate. Just being there and sailing
around in circles, as it has been put, bristling, just here
we are look at us. The second is the role I have just
talked about. The third and the most active is the
interdiction role that you've been talking about. The other
is a need for the second role, the one that we are talking
about. Let me make the point that this, firstly, that as I
say that has been regarded and has been indicated to us by
the United States as constituting a very useful role for our
much smaller force in relation to the more massive power of
others that's there. The second point I make is this, Phil,
that we have some 19 days now between the time of our
vessels leaving where they are now, they are on their way to
Fremantle and getting to the Gulf region. Now there'll be a
lot of time between now and then for further consultation
and the Cabinet has made it clear that if in the light of
changing circumstances and further consultation which go to
the question of ensuring effectiveness of our forces, if it
becomes clear that it is desirable to enhance this specific
role which I have identified now then we will be prepared to
consider that. And Cabinet has made the decision that if
there is a perception of the need to heighten the role then
Cabinet will consider that and then be prepared to see
whether such a decision is required. In other words, and I
don't apologise for the length of the answer because it is a
very important question you've raised. In other words, the
decision that has been taken is the eminently sensible
decision, well thought through, appropriate, regarded as
such by the United States which has the major force in the
area and is capable of change if circumstances necessitate
that change.
HURST: Mr Hawke, on another issue, a budget being handed
down next Tuesday night. There are rumours coming out of
Canberra that it is going be a tough one particularly with
rumoured cuts in pharmaceutical benefit schemes for
pensioners. Have you got any comment on that?
PM: Phil, this is now my eighth year as Prime Minister and
I can say that nothing is new in the sense that in every
previous occasion I have seen the rumour mills running hot
and all sorts of things being suggested that will be done.
Now quite clearly, Phil, you know that I can't disclose, and
will not disclose what will be in the Budget. But let me
say these things. There will be some decisions that will be
relatively tough but they will be fair decisions. I have
not spent all my life so far, most of it in public life, and
with a commitment to the future of this country to avoid
taking decisions which I and my colleagues believe are
necessary and are proper and in the best interests of this
country. If as Prime Minister I had avoided decisions
because there would be some suggestion of criticism then we
would have done nothing. Certainly for instance we wouldn't
have brought in the assets test. Now remember the
nationwide campaign of villification against me and my
Government when that was brought in. This was going to be
the end of civilisation as we knew it. If we'd listened to
that we would have done nothing. But now it is accepted
across the board as a sensible and fair and proper decision.
The Budget will be tough in some respects but it will be
fair. But above all it will be appropriate to the overall
challenging task which we have got as a nation and that is
to make sure that we create a competitive economy which is
going to put us in the position to do the things that we
need to do to look after those most in need in the
community. HURST: The Libs, or the Opposition, seems to have started a
march on Labor by going for full privatisation of Telecom.
The Government seems to have a confused position now with a
paper put out by Kim Beazley, a document revealed by him
PM: Not revealed by him, to be fair, I am sorry to
interrupt Phil but, it's certainly a proposed submission of
the Minister. But he didn't reveal it.
HURST: Well, there are two separate positions, Mr Beazley's
and Mr Keating's. I mean, which position do you favour?
PM: Before coming to the specific question let me say this
quite straightforwardly that not only within the Labor Party
but within the community generally there is legitimate room
for differences of opinion as to what is the ideal course of
action to make our telecommunications industry as efficient
and as competitive as possible. It is true I don't seek,
because it would be stupid and dishonest to try and do so, I
don't seek to deny that there have been differences of
emphasis between some of the Ministers and particularly
between Mr Beazley and the Treasurer, Paul Keating. There
have been differences of emphasis. What I'm doing, as is my
responsibility as Prime Minister, is to have discussions
with both the Ministers and between the Ministers and I feel
confident that by the time the Government in Cabinet comes
to make a decision on this and to make clear not merely to
my Party but to the community what the appropriate course of
action is, that we will have an agreed position. This is
not something to be ashamed of or frightened of that there
are differences of opinion, arguments. Because when you're
dealing with a critically important issue like this it would
be absurd to believe that there is some revealed wisdom and
only one revealed wisdom to which everyone would accede.
HURST: But this seems potentially one of the most divisive
issues in Labor's eight year rule. I mean we're talking
about backbenchers, Party members and union members opposed
to it very decisively.
PM: There are some who in my view take a quite unacceptable
position and that is that there should be no change at all.
I regard that as antideluvian. As I said last night at this
great meeting we had here in Grafton, I said to the people
there, and it's a message I will be giving to all
Australians. We live at a time of the most dramatic and
rapid change in the whole of recorded human history and for
a people to make the assumption that the practices and
attitude of the past are sufficient for this new and
challenging future is a derogation of duty. We must not be
afraid of change. We must ask ourselves what is the best
form of change? And once you get yourself into that mode of
thinking, then it is true that people can have legitimate
differences about what's the best form of change but change
there must be and change there will be.
HURST: Mr Hawke you said last night Labor can and has
matched the need for growth with a responsible approach and
a sustainable economy, yet four major conservation groups
say in a joint submission published today that Labor has
allowed green issues to fall off the political agenda since
the March election.
PM: They are wrong. A simple statement. Wrong. And they
could not be more abundantly wrong. Because they seem to
equate noise and statements with action. Now that may be
the credo of some within the environmental movement but it's
a wrong assumption. Because in the period since the
election my responsible Ministers, which includes Mrs Kelly
who has a direct environmental responsibility, but others
including John Kerin, we have been very much involved in
developing the processes for a proper consideration of these
issues. Just let me make these points which I think are
relevant. Again I alluded briefly to them last night.
There must not be the mistake made, in this country or
elsewhere for that matter, that the responsible approach is
to say it's either development or the environment. The
challenge for Government is to make sure that you get an
appropriate balance between growth considerations and the
responsibility we have to future generations. Now to do
that that's a very simple thing to say but what we have
been doing in the period both before and very much since the
election is to give effect to the commitment I made that we
would establish processes, effective processes to enable
that balance to be best achieved. The first step they'd
taken, which was of course before the election, was the
establishment of the Resource Assessment Commission under
the chairmanship of Mr Justice Stewart. And that will
enable the environmental movement and industry, State
governments, people with a concern, to go before the
Resource Assessment Commission on specific issues and argue
the case. Now in addition to that, what I promised before
the election and what we have been doing since the election
is to establish processes to give effect to the concept of
sustainable development. By that, we've put out a paper
which fleshes out the concept of sustainable development and
we're going to apply that within different sectors so that
we will have representatives of industry and of the
environmental movement and trade unions. They will be
sitting there working together under independent
chairpersons to examine how the concept of sustainable
development should be applied in different sectors of our
industry. Since the election we'vye been working assiduously
on establishing those processes. Now that's not dramatic.
It doesn't involve the Prime Minister getting up and
shouting from rooftops. To say because the Prime Minister
hasn't been shouting from rooftops we've given these issues
away is absurdly wrong and, if I may say so with respect to
my friends in the environmental movement, a very
irresponsible statement.
HURST: Well finally Mr Hawke, Labor's victory in Richmond
at least depended significantly on a swag of votes for
Independent Helen Caldicott and issues arising out of the
ICAC inquiry among others. Can Labor stand on its own two
feet in one of Australia's fastest-growing regions?
PM: We can certainly stand on our own two feet. Let me
make this point however Phil, that if you look at politics
in Australia and in the rest of the world, we have to
acknowledge the fact, and it's not a fact of which I'm
b 6
frightened, but the nature of politics has changed in this
last decade. One of the significant elements in change has
been the emergence of environmental issues. That is true in
Australia, it's true in Europe, the United States, and the
established parties, including my own, have to understand
that fact and recognise there may not be the same cemented
realities of the past where the two major parties just
gobbled up all the votes between them. Now as far as I'm
concerned, I believe that we have one of the most
environmentally responsible governments in the world, but
it's also one which has had twice the rate of employment
growth of the rest of the industrialised world. I will
stand on both the record of achievement but also on the
principles that we adopt. I'm more than happy to continue
to go to the Australian people and particularly those who
have a legitimate concern with the environment and say look
at our record, look at our principles, look at our
processes. I would like to get their first preference vote.
If I can't get that, I am convinced that on the basis of
both record, principle and processes, that we deserve their
second vote. And if it's the second vote we get, so be it.
HURST: Mr Hawke, thanks very much for your time this
morning. PM: It's been my pleasure Phil. Thank you very much.
ends