PRIME MINISTER
PRESS CONFERENCE 31 MAY 19.85 PARLIAMENT HOUSE
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
The Government has-been pleased to receive report
within due time from Professor Slatyer. You'll recall that
this is part of the decision the Government made in regard
to uranium and I believe that it will provide, and as I said
in the Parliament, for a useful basis not only for discussion
within the Labor Party as they come up to the Conference when
they have to make decisions on these matters, but I think the
whole of the Australian community in its considerations of this
important issue by.-. the. report,* which: in mF' -judgembftt will become a
standard for analysis of these matters. I think it's excellent
in terms of its technical competence and the way it addresses
itself to the major issues of concern.
JOtJRNLIST: Mr Hawke would fjou expect the Cabinet to be looking
at the question of new contracts before the. Conference?
It could only, I think, be doing that in the light of
any reports that we may receive from relevant Ministers and I
think there particularly Mr Hayden who wish to make some
report on any discussions he's had with thie French on this
matter. But no, I would see no decisions being made by the
Cabinet or the Government prior to the Conference in that respect.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what do you foresee in terms of the
report saying that Australia should perhaps enrich uranium and
also go into joint ventures with countries in the Asian-Pacific
region. Certainly that extension hasn't been considered by the
Government. It's formed no part of our considerations. I just
see it there as the work of the Committee putting out as a logical
extension of its consideration of the issues but it's not a matter
to which the Government has directed it's attention nor would it
be appropriate to expect any decision on that.
JOURNALIST: So it wouldn't be rejected out of hand?
I was putting it . the other.'. way. It hasn't to this point
been any part of our thinking or our proposals and I can't see
that it would be.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke another committee academics, Dr Souter
and Professor Kerr have put out a report today which takes exactly
the opposite stance. Why should more credence be given
JOURNALIST: cont. to the report of the Government committee than
the Souter and Kerr report? II
would hope that people who are interested in these
issues would read both.. I haven't had a copy of the Souter
report sent to me. I hope that one is sent to me. I will
certainly read it. I can only say that I would be more than
a little surprised if the Souter report turned out to be a
superior one to the report that I tabled in the Parliament
today. But I urge everyone who's interested in the issues to
read both.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister how does this politically..' help you,
or if it does at all, at the July National Conference. in ter--ns of
getting this argument through policy on uranium.
-r
P. Well I think the report sustains the analysis and
argument that I and others have put and it does it with an
authority in some respects that I am not able to bring to bear
to it, or some of my other colleagues. And I would feel sure
that those of our colleagues who will be delegates to the
Conference, who to this point may not have come to some final
conclusion, will read this report with an open mind and will
be persuaded with the virtue, of the conclusions that are
contained in the report.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke the report goes much farther than the
Government's existing policy. Does this lead you to believe
that perhaps the changes at the Conference should go further
than simply backing the Government's decisions over the last
few months. Well, I think you( 11 appreciate that the draft report
of. Senator Walsh goes further than the actual decisions of the
Government. Now I would not expect that there'll be proposals
before the Conference going substanti~ ly-. further than the
Roxby issue.
JOURNALIST: Would you support the Walsh position?
I've asked my colleagues to contain their debate within
the Party and I think I'll do the same thing.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you said that there was no immediate
short-term consideration enrichment. Do you, see the enrichment
industry Well, could I just interrupt you Michelle. I'm not really
wanting to put adjectival qualifications on it. I mean there is
no consideration of it.
JOURNALIST: Do you see the possibility of an enrichment industry
in Australia',-in the long-term?
No, I haven't directed my attention to it. We've give:.' i
no consideration to it and it not being an issue I therefore
firmly believe that the state of the issues that will before
the Conference are not assisted by hypothesising about something
which is not in the Government's mind. ./ 3
JOURNALIST: If you accept the proposition-in the Report
that if the Government is to maximise input into nonproliferation
it would be best for Australia to be involved
not only in mining but in the acceptance of the enrichment
debate.
PM: I can see from the point of view of the Committee, thE!
logic of the position that they put that the Government has;
to address itself to the issues which are of relevance in
the existing political and economic scene and in terms of
the answer that I gave to Michelle, there is no point in
muddying that relevant debate by talking about something
which, as far as the Government is concerned, is not on the!
agenda. JOURNALIST: Well since the Report has raised this subject,
do you think there will be a requirement or a need for the
Government to consider it at some stage?
PM: I can't see it.
JOURNALIST: That would go too with the recommendation to
get countries like Japan and Australia together in terms
of the nuclear fuel cycle to create stability in the region..
PM:. I think there are areas for co-operation between
Australia and Japan in some respects. For instance when I
was in Japan you will recall that Mr. Nakasone raised with
me the question of. their disposal of nuclear waste products
and I made it clear th ~ t Australia had a very strong view
that it was against As an dumping at this stage and arguing
that they should dispose of it on land on their land. So
there is an opportunity for co-operation between us in us
putting positions as to what we think is the appropriate thing
to be done. I think that with those countries with whom we
have excellent relations we ought to be able to co-operate in
the relevant international fora like the International
Atomic Energy Agency to co-operate in trying to increase
safe-guards. That is the sort of co-operation that I see as
possible. JOURNALIST: But not joint ventures or anything like that?
PM: Not down the sort of track that has been raised in the
previous question.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, if you were holding discussions with
other countries about the storage of high level nuclear waste,
would you see it as a possibility that Australia might store
nuclear waste in this country
PM: I can't see that as a possibility. / 4
JOURNALIST: Sir, would you prefer that we use the term long
term in your statement to Parliament today forecasts as
well does this imply that you see a need for Australia to
play a role in the nuclear fuel cycle which goes beyond the
resources of the existing mines at Roxby Downs.
PM: You know the Walsh Draft goes further and I have already
addressed myself to that question.
JOURNALIST:. Prime Minister, can I ask you a question on
another subject.
PM: You can have a go, we'll see.
JOURNALIST: Has the Cabinet reached a decision on an assets
test and if so, do you believe the decision will reduce some
of the fear or confusion, if you like, amongst pensioners.
PM: Yes and yes.
JOURNALIST: Can you confirm to us that you gave a dressing~
down to your Ministry today about the leaks?
PM: I cannot confirm.
JOURNALIST: About the decision?
PM: I like that one actually.
JOURNALIST: Do you p17 to tell us the decision now?
PM: Which one?
JOURNALIST: The Cabinet decision. Or are you going to do
that tomorrow?
PM: Oh I think I will leave it-till tomorrow, Ken, if you
don't mind. I'm quite prepared to have another press
conference with you tomorrow.
JOURNALIST: Will you announce it tomorrow?
PM: Yes, I'll be making a statement in the Parliament tomorrow.
JOURNALIST: In the events of this week, particularly yestErday,
do you think that immigration will now run as an issue in the
election? PM: I trust it will not. I don't want to do anything here
or subsequently to revive it as an issue or partisanship. I
think you can' appreciate that it would be fairly easy for me
to do that, but I'm not going to. I think you are all aware
of the attitude that I adopted in the Parliament. I'm not
going to divert from that. I simply want to say that I think
there is the basis now for a resumption by the Opposition of a
bipartisan position and I think that position has been reached
and I trust it will be and I'm not going to say anything which
is going to prejudice that.
JOURNALIST: Does that mean, Mr. Hawke, that the Government
sees its way clear now to establish a race relations committee
in the Caucus.
PM: Well I believe that anything that the Parliament can do
tsecure within the community a rational and humane approach
on these issues makes sense and I say at this stage no more
than that.
JOURNALIST: Given the number of new revelations about the
Maralinga test area is there a case for a full judicial
enquiry into that
PM: I wouldn't say that at this stage. Let me make a couple
of general comments and then a specific one., I think you
will appreciate that this Government has got nothing to hide
or any interest in seeking to hide the truth as to what
happened in that period and that is, if you like, quite
objective reason and if you want to look at it in partisan.
terms we were not the Government. So however you look at
it, this Government doesn't seek to hide anything and
certainly that is the attitude of the Government in general.
It is the attitude of the Minister, Senator Walsh. He, I
understand, will receive tomorrow the Report which he
commissioned to examine from whatever sources are available
what the evidence is as to fall-out. I think he has got
the Report as to chronology of events and he and the
Government will be examining the situation in the light of'
those Reports. It is premature until we have looked at those
reports to say what further steps may be necessary but I
assert to you quit; e unequivocally that we will do all that. we
can to see that the tp'th of what happened emerges.
JOURNALIST: If you have made a decision on the assets test,
why can't you bring the uncertainty that is surrounding it.,
particularly amongst the elderly community to a rest here and
now by making
PM: I understand the importance that you attach to yourselves
aind the jobs that you hold and the responsibilities that you
feel that you have to discharge, but my view is that it is
appropriate to bring to this to the Parliament.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, just on that immigration point on
the committee on race relations, do you think the suspension
of Mr. Hodgman today might impair the Government's ability
to have that committee?
PM: I wouldn't think so. I mean, you know I'm charitable
by nature. I don't want to cast dispersions on the persor. to
whom you refer. I didn't detect a noticeable degree of support
for the gentelman on the other side of the House. I think the
Parliament is capable of dealing with these matters with o'r
without the presence of the person to whom you refer. / 6
6.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, will you intervene in this dispute
which is k eeping the non-members bar clo" sed?
PM: MY heart goes out to you. No-one is on strike at
the Lodge.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if I may, one more on the
assets test. You have made a decision. Would that
decision be as that suggested by Mr. Peacock today, namely,
that you could drop all plans for an assets test.
PM: I would have thought that the evidence availabe to you
people who watch the proceedings of this Parliament is such
that you would have come to the conclusion that I certainly
have come to a long time ago and it is perhaps more
starkly evident now that it would be an exercise in
futility to rely upon any form of guidance and particularly
consistent guidance from the Leader of the Opposition on
any matter or importance.