PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P. J. KEATING MP
DOORSTOP, MILLBROOK RESORT, QUEENSTOWN,
12 NOVEMBER 1995
ElOE PROOF COPY
J: Prime Minister, what concrete acton Is Australia going to take over tihe
Nigerian Issue?
PM: In the first Instance, we will be withdrawing our Ambassador to show
our anger and our objection to this sort of behaviour, the denial of
human rights and human values In Nigeria and, of course, I have been
part of the majority here the overwhelming majority of
Commonwealth Leaders which has made clear that Nigeria will be
suspended from the Commontwealth until it demonstrates that It has
had a change of heart and a change In the way in which the country
Operates and is moving back towards civilian government.
J, What impact does suspension have, I mean, how does this hurt
Nigeria?
PM: There are two things, I think. This was a test of the Commonweafth's
moral authority. The Commonwealth's moral authority has been
Important in Zimbabwe. It has been important in removing the racially
based government of South Africa, the policy of apartheid. On that
occasion It introduced economic sanctions which were completely
effective. I might just say John Howard today on television, said that he
doesn't regret not Supporting economic sanctions against South Africa.
Let me record that, had those sanctions not been used,
Nelson Mandela would not be at this meeting today. He would not be
at this meeting as the President of South Africa, but for the fact that the
Labor Government in Australia and other like-minded governments
around the world employed economic sanctions against South Africa.
Now, these opions always exist for other countries. The
Commonwealth has no constitutional authority over sovereign
countries, but it is a very large representative group of countries and It
does have moral authority. Its moral authority would not have been
maintained were it to be, In a sense, scrubbed, defied by the
Government of Nigeria in executing these nine people. The fact that
they were executed means, I think, that the Commonwealth had to act
and the Commonwealth has acted.
J: What sort of a push was there for expulsion?
PM; Not very much, in fact none. Because with expulsion there Is no
Incentive to return and there Is no continuing link withl the country.
Whereas with suspension, we can keep that pressure on. That
pressure has been kept on a number of Countries in the past and most
obviously, of course, South Africa.
J. Any indication from the Nigerian Foreign Minister as to whether they will
take up any of that Incentive as you say?
PM: Well, I think, thy wil1 have to think about their position and no doubt,
I think, probably today, we will think further about what might be done.
But we did adopt yesterday a set of principles around the H~ arare
Declaration which will be applied now, I think, consistently over time to
any Countries that break the conventions of decent behaviour In
government or human rights.
J: Will we be expelling Nigeria's legation from Australia?
PMV: We are withdrawing our Ambassador tor consultations and we will
consider where we go from there, but this Is very strong action by the
Commonwealth in suspending Nigeria and it wes unanimous bar two
countries.
J: What countries were they Prime Minister?
PM: The Solomon Islands and Gambia.
J: What further actions would you like to see taken against Nigeria to give
some efec to what you ame hoping to achieve?
PM: The problem here is the question again of the nation state. Countries
which are calWe nations are often a Collection of regional areas or tribal
regions and politics in many countries of Africa have been organised
tribally. It remains to be aeon whether a poltical party structure of the
kind we have In Australia can actually apply effectively wtiere there Is
good government and justice for all. I think these are some of the
Issues, but one thing Is certain, a return to ciiian government is the
key ingredient for Nigeria.
J: Just one lest question on Nigeria If I may, there was talk last night of
setting up a time frame for possible expulsion, what Is your view of
that?
ILL-3
PM: I think probably the time frame should be between now and the next
meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government, which Is two
years. Some may argue for it earlier than that, but I think to have the
sort of plenary force of the Commonwealth, there really needs to be a
Head of Government Meeting. And I don't think that, if you like, further
solid action can be taken without a meeting of the Heads of
Government. So I think that is probably the way it might go.
J: By having to confront issues such as Nigeria and nuclear testing, do
you believe this has strengthened the Commonwealth. or CHOGM, as
a forum?
PM. Well one of the things I said yesterday was that if the United Nations
didn't exist, we would have to invent it. If the Commonwealth didn't
exist, we wouldn't have to invent it. But it does exist and it exists
because of the linkage we have all had with Britain at one point or
another. So it Is a trans-regional body that runs across the world's
regions and it has been effective in speaking about democracy, the rule
of law, justice, human rights and development issues end I think it can
continue to do that. Yesterday was a test of that and I think It passed
that test.
J: You would be aware of Mr Howard on the Sunday Program today,
Prime Minister. What would you like to say about his comments?
PM: Well he said today, he gave us this pat line again that he Is in favour of
families, arrogantly, as if the rest of us don't come from families, or we
are not in favour of them. But what he said is he was in favour of
orthodox family arrangements. What he means Is he is not in favour of
the unorthodox. In other words, he is only in favour of the nuclear
family and the picket fence, he is not in favour of single parent families
and he said, I thought rather ominously, that " a Government under him
will not be a society where the Government picks up the pieces of
families". In other words, they won't be supporting giving income
support to families, income support per child for children, as the
Government does. You see Mr Howard says he believes in families,
but he doesn't believe In family support. He believes in families, but he
doesn't believe in decent wages for them. He believes in families, but
he doesn't believe In overtime rates. He believes in families, but he
doesn't believe in Medicare. I mean, and what he made clear today,
when pressed about the orthodox families that he is supporting and
as, I think, every Australian knows the so-called nuclear. orthodox family
is but a minority of families in Australia he said he was not going to
debate in 1995 the definition of the family. In other words, what he Is
telling us it's the same old John Howard with the picket fence. If you
are, you know, mum and dad and three kids with a comfortable
bungalow and a car in the driveway, well you will be supported. If you
are a single parent with children, you won't be. If you are any other
category of family, you will be called into question. That was one of the
things he said. SL . I 14W V J L. .0 IU I
The other thing he said was about integrity in Government. He said we
need Integrity in Government and Mr Oakes asked him the question,
" Well why, Mr Howard, did you say coming up to the 1983 election that
the Budget deficit was $ 6 billion, when you know it was $ 9.6 billion?"
Hie then told a lie. He said, " I found out about it the night before the
election." That is untrue. He found out about it about the Tuesday
before the election and he sat on it for tour days. In a key matter, in a
key election, and then he has got the gall to talk about Integrity In office
and honesty in policies. He was asked, also, this question: did he
regret his non-support of economic sanctions in South Africa? And he
said, no he didn't. The point was made, well Nelson Mandela wouldn't
be at this meeting of the Commonwoetth had your view obtained. Now
Nelson Mandela wouldn't be here had John Howard's view obtained.
This is the same John Howard who said be very careful of
Mikhail Gorbachev and perestroika, he Is essentially leading you on, it
is just the old sort of communist bogey, giving us another misleading
line. in the meantime, of course, the Soviet Union has fallen apart, the
Berlin wall has come down. On every foreign policy issue he has ever
touched, he has been wrong and he was wrong a month ago when he
said we have got to be suspicious of Asia, It Is a threat, we want
security from Asia and not In Asia. But the thing about him Is, he never
learns. He is out there today beating his breast about his policies on
South Africa. In fact, they were dead wrong and he was in a minority
against the rest of the world.
ends