E & E 0 Proof Only
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE FRIDAY JUNE 29 1984
HAWKE: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll just make a very brief
preliminary comment and then I'll be available for your
questions. I have not until today felt inclined to go into
any extensive public comment or make myself available in
regard to issues that would be involved with the upcoming
executive and conference. The State Conferences of the
parties have been going on. I did not go to those conferences,
I have been asked to go to them and it wasn't appropriate
or open to go to them all and we thought in the circumstances
we . would go to none. But at the conferences and since
participants in the conferences have quite properly, and I
have no concern about that, engaged in discussions about the
issues and in way at times which has involved my position
and so I thought it was about time that I was available to;.
comment on some of those issues and I therefore make myself
available to you. I make this observation, that while I
am prepared to go to these issues I don't intend to take this
opportunity to exhaust the argu inents that I will be using at
the Executive and the Conference on these or any other matters
because I still regard it as appropriate for the full development
of argu ment and decision-making to take place at those
forums. But having said that I am available for any -questions
you would like to address to me. you
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do/ believe Conference will vote
C to support uranium mining.
HAWKE: Yes, I believe it will.
JOURNALIST: Prime Mininster, Indonesia's Foreign Minister
was reported this morning as saying that if. Auttralia.' s relations
with-Indonesia over East Timor had reached the stage where it
could be advisable for both countries to downgrade their
diplomatic ties. Do you agree with that and what sort of
resolution would you like to see out of the National Conference
on East Timor and Indonesia?
HAWKE: I appreciate that question. I am not going to enter
into a detailed analysis of Dr Mochtar's observations because
I don't believe that the very important question of our
relations with Indonesia would be assisted by doing that.
And let me also make the observation that when we're talking
about relations with Indonesia, we're doing more than that.
Because, inevitably given the very close political association
which exists between the constituent members of ASEAN we are talking
about more than Indonesia when we talk about Indonesia and
therefore I simply content myself with saying in respect of
the first part of your question that I don't think a downgrading
I
-2-
of relations would be in the best interests of the two
countries. I will continue to be having discussions with
my friend and colleague the Foreign Minister, Mr Bill Hayden,
and as we have done since we have been in government, Bill and
I will be attempting to have a position from Australia's point
of view which will enable the maintenance of constructive
relationships between our two countries because that's what
is in the interests of Australians, of Indonesians and of the
countries in the region. And going from that to the latter part
of your quest-ion I therefore say simpl. y that I hope and I
believe that the treatment of this issue by the conference
will be such as to enable Bill Hayden and myself to continue
along that path.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it's right that 99 Labor Party
machine people should be in a position to wreck Australia's
relations with its nearest neighbour.
HAWKE: Well, I think that goes to a broader question. I mean
it's not simply that. I think your question is broader than
that. In a party such as ours, has made the decision to have
open conferences and open discussions about issues, it's
inevitable, Laurie, that in those circumstances, it's going
to discuss a range of issues which can be potentially
damaging. You picked one. All I can say is that I've got
to express the hope which I do, not only in regard to that
issue but to all others, that the 99 people at the Conference
will understand that what they are dealing with is not simply
their own view about a particular issue, but that there is
an obligation upon all of us at that Conference to understand
that the Labor Party is an instrument for advancing the interests
and welfare of Australians. And it has always been such.
More often than not it's been in Opposition and therefore in
that condition of Opposition perhaps you can greater, to a
greater degree, exercise the luxury of putting points of view
about particular issues.. In government I believe that there
will be a sharpened appreciation of the responsibility that
we all have to conduct ourselves in a way which is going to)
enable the continued advancement of the interests of the great
majority of Australians. And from the first day that we have
been in government, not only I, but I believe the government
as a whole, has understood the obligations we have not simply
to the Party as such, but the obligations we have to Australia.
That's been the hallmark of our government. It's the basic
explanation of why the stocks of this government have increased
substantially since the election. Now we have been successful
for that reason and I am confident that the majority of the
delegates will have the same view.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, will you allow separate issues
such as those of foreign banks to intrude upon issues such
as East Timor?
HAWKE: Will I allow issues such as the foreign...
JOURNALIST: Will you approve that separate issues such as
that of Indonesia and East Timor, by separate issues I mean
for example, foreign banks, to intrude upon the Conference's
consideration and debating on issues such as Indonesia?
-3
HAWKE: I must confess that I have difficulty in following
the question but let me make these observations which I
hope are relevant to what's in your mind. The agenda of
the Conference will be drawn up in a way which has area
by area, dealt with economic, foreign affairs and defence,
energy and resources within which uranium will come. And
speaking for myself, and I would think speaking for the
majority of delegates, I will address myself to the issue.:
before the chair on the basis of the merits of that issue.
And as far as I'm concerned, there won't be any concept
of what I say on this issue will be shaped by some perception
of another issue. Each issue has to live on its own merits,
as far as I'm concerned.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, why does the National Executive
need to intervene in the decision by the State Conference,
Victorian State Conference, last weekend regarding reaffiliation.
HAWKE: I understand from the National Secretary that there
are two pieces of correspondence either received or on the
way, in respect of that issue, and the matter will, by the
appropriate processes of the constitution of the Partybe
before the Party. the
JcJJBNALIT: Mr Hawke do you want to see/ Executive next week
take a final decision on that matter and what position will
you be supporting at that meeting?
HAWKE: I have made it quite clear earl. ier this year in a
number of public statements that I believe that any union
has the right to be affiliated. I have made it quite clear
on number of occasions that in respect of the unions in question
here that they have the right to be affiliated. I have at all
points made the distinction and I make it again, and it's
very important that it be understood between the union and
individuals, and let me make it clear if in respect of any
individuals it is claimed and can be established that they
are or have recently been members of any proscribed organisation
then they as individuals, can seek, certainly they cannot
expect any special treatment. They would have, if they
wished to become members of the Labor Party, serve that period
of waiting before being able to become members. As far as the
unions are concerned, I believe that the unions have the right
to be affiliated. I do not believe that you can have a situation
where men and women of Victoria who are clerks, men and-women
who are members of the shop assistants' union and so on with
the other two unions, if they by their democratic processes
have elected their leadership and by their democratic processes
have-indicated a desire to be members of this Party then I believe
they have the right through their unions to be members.
JOURNALIST: Do you have a majority support on the Executive
for that point of view, Prime Minister?
HAWKE: I hope so.
JOURNALIST: A final decision next week.
HAWKE: Well I think there has been an assumption that if
the National Executive is to make a decision different from
4
that made by the Victorian Conference there may be some attempt
to have the matter raised at the Conference. I would hope that
if the view that I put is accepted by the Federal Executive
that people would say well that's fair enough... I'm not sure
that they will.
JOURNALIST: Are you also concerned that without the union
affiliation the Victorian branch remains in the hands of the
Socialist Left?
HAWKE: Well,-I'm not a member of the Socialist Left so the
answer to that question is fairly obvious. I would prefer that
within this delightful party of ours which has its factions,
fractions or however you describe them. I guess its human
nature that I prefer the shade to which. I belong to be more
dominant. And I guess that is quite clear.
JOURNALIST: Sir, Mr Hartley said two days ago, that the Left
already controls four state branches and two territories and
is close to controlling the Party nationally. Do you agree
with. that?
HAWKE: Well, I think there have been many occasions on public
record in the past where I don't agree with Mr Hartley and this
is another.
JOURNALIST: What effect would it have if Mr Hartley was to
be endorsed as number three on the Victorian Senate ticket?
HAWKE: Fortunately, that's hypothetical and I am not addressing
myself to a hypothetical question.
JOURNALIST: Could you in all conscience, Mr Hawke, as Prime
Minister of this country, phase out those uranium mines in
the Northern Territory and stop Roxby Downs going ahead?
HAWKE: I don't believe I'm going to be faced with that
( i hypothetical position.
JOURNALIST: What form do you expect your pro-uranium policy
to take?
HAWKE: I would think that the position that will be adopted by
the conference would be the position which I advanced before the
Caucus and for which I obtained a Caucus-majority.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what happens if the National
Executive endorses your view on the unions and the Victorian
state branch decides to dig in?
HAWKE: Well I don't know what they'd be digging in. There
are a couple of observations that one could make.
JOURNALIST: I'm saying if they resist.
HAWKE: The authority of the federal party is paramount.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if the Left of Victoria say that they':
be pushing at Conference for a complete ban on visits to this country
by nuclear powered warships. What effect would that have do
you think?
HAWKE: Well, it's again hypothetical. I mean that's a view
that they have expressed. Let me make this point, Peter,
that the position of the Party has been quite clear on this;
issue. I have no expectation that it will be changed.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, following on from that. If
a Labor government is elected in New Zealand on Saturday
fortnight, how would you cope with it, the Labor pledge
that there'll be no visits by nuclear-powered or armed
warships to New Zealand waters. Is it the end of ANZUS
as Sir Robert-. says?
HAWKE: Well, we'll have to see. And let me say I wish my
friend and colleague, David Lange, that in a fraternal sense
good luck, although I can't interfere and don't in the
process of elections over there, but we would have to
see in that hypothetical situation what a Labor government
would do. Now I don't know what they would do.
JOURNALIST: But the policy is quite clear.
HAWKE: I repeat I don't know what a Labor government would
do. And what my government would do and say would have to
depend upon what it was that we were looking at. I don't
accept at this stage what an incoming Labor government in
New Zealand would do on this issue. I don't know.
JOURNALIST: What do you expect to happen over the future of
strategic bases in Australia, at conference?
HAWKE: I've already answered that question. Well not exactly
but it's in the same category as referring to the nuclear
ships visits. The position of the party has been clear in
the last, in recent conferences. I don't expect it to change
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what would you say to those
members of your party who would either want to maintain the!
C. current policy on East Timor, as in the resolution of the last
conference, or even toughen it up by insisting that
de-recognition take place immediately.
HAWKE:' I would say, and it really is a variation on what
said before, I would say that Bill Hayden is absolutely correct
in what he has said publicly, he says it with my endorsement.
We have maintained close communication and consultation, one
with the other, on this issue, from the first day of government.
Bill has very correctly said that if we are concerned, as we
must be, with the interests of the people of East Timor, then
we shouldn't do things which are going to make it more
difficult for the Australian Government to be of relevant
assistance. And I think that any course of action along the
lines which are implied in your question, explicit in your
question, would make it more difficult for our government
to not only have constructive relations, but within that
constructive relationship to be of assistance to the people
of East Timor.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, the Caucus uranium motion implies rather
than explicitly supports new contracts for existing mines. In
the motion which your supporters, which your supporters will
put to Conference, will the support for new contracts be
-6
more explict?
HAWKE: There should be no doubt that what is intended by the
Caucus resolution, which I was instrumental in achieving, means.
That the existing mines in the Northern Territory are able to
have new con-tracts, in other words, they are able to go to
completion. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, pressure of work kept you away
from the state conferences of your Party, will pressure of
work keep you away from the Olympic Games in Los Angeles?
HAWKE: I have not at any stage had any intention of going
to the Olympic Games?
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what was it that you were doing
that was more important that addressing the various state
branches of the Labor Party which were electing delegates
which will, who ultimately form Labor Party policy?
HAWKE: Well, you know one of the reasons why we were
enjoying and will continue to enjoy the very substantial
support of the Australian electorate is that we have a
capacity to get our priorities right. And last year we
had to prepare our first budget and it was a remarkably
successful budget. I have been engaged in the last few
weeks just before coming here, and when I leave this
delightful gathering will go straight back to the less
exotic atmosphere of the Expenditure Review Committee,
where we will continue the shaping of the budget for
84-85. And may I say you're talking about relatively
important things. I think it is rather unfortunate that
given all the excitement and drama of the conferences thait
there has been a tendency to overlook the fact that in the
same period this country has seen the conjunction of the most
favourable range of economic statistics that this country
has seen, I would think, in the last decade. All the evidence
is coming out day.. after day of the overwhelming success of the
Government in its economic planning. You can look not merely at
the national accounts figures, but the figures in regard to
investment that are coming out, the figures in regard to
retail sales generally, cars in particular. There has not:
been, I think for a decade, a more consistently favourable
conjunction of economic statistics. Those things aren't
happening by accident, it's because this government has
got its priorities right and I will continue to do that.
JOURNALIST: You're expressing confidence in winning in
all these major issues. What sort of margin do you think
you are going to win by, is it going to be close?
HAWKE: I would think it's obviously correct to say that
on some of the issues it will be quite close. But I don't:
want to reduce such important issues to the language of the
sporting domain, but it is the case if you ever go to the
races, that the bookmaker pays the same amount if your
favoured steed has won by a short nostril as if it wins by
the length of the straight.
7.-
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, can we interpret from your answer
to my last question that the popularity of your
government is dependent on you not taking a major role in
formulating party policy.
HAWKE: Well, you are the-ones for interpretation and I am
at times amazed by the capacity for misinterpretation that is
evident, if you engaged in that particular piece of interpretation
well that'll be for you.
JOURNALIST: I was after your interpretation.
HAWKE: No you said can we interpret. You said can we
interpret. If you want to put the question to me, what wo'uld
my interpretation be you do it.
JOURNALIST: What is your interpretation?
C HAWKE: Of what?
JOURNALSIT: What is your interpretation of the answer to
my last question?
HAWKE: What's the interpretation of my answer to your last
question, you'll have to do better than that?
JOURNALIST: Is there Any practicable way that an Australian
Government could apply a ban to the export of uranium to
France? HAWKE: It could be done. It would involve a breaking of
contractual commitment and I think it is clear, and people
will have to take this into account. There is no doubt that
if that were done, it would involve no damage to France. It
all, by definition, would involve damage to Australia.
CQUESTION: Are you suppo rting the continuation of that ban..
PM: That's an issue that I would rather keep for discussion atthe
Conference, and I say that because/ as you know in the period
leading up to the Conference there's . a lot of discussions going on
between different groups. I don't thi'nk it would help to take that
any further.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, do we take it on your uranium stand
that there can be therefore no accommodation with the Northern
Land Councils demands that contracts be allowed for those two
new mines?
PM: Well, under the Caucus decision that is not open. One of the
interesting things is going to be in the uranium debate -is t~ o see
whether those who in the past have passionately used as an argument
against uranium mining the position and attitude of the aborigines,
whether they will use the same argument on this occasion.
YOU
QUESTION: Do/ accept that opinion, is divided on the issue of uranium. then
Mr Hawke? The Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference in
the Northern Territory came out yesterday very strongly against
uranium mining, including -the potential dangers to the At-original
people?
-8
PM: Well, it's been made quite clear to us that the majority position
of those speaking on behalf of Aborigines is in favour of it.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, do you think it was proper-for you to call
Justice Ludeke at the time he was considering academic salaries?
PM: Call him. Yes, we wanted to find out whether in fact there
was a possibilityof an a~ ument being put, or the matter being re-opened
in regard to phasing. of course, what ' s improper about that?
QUESTION: What is the Australian Government's attitude to the
situation on the Irian Jaya border. Do you see a role for the
United Nations to handle the refugee
PM: That's a good question. I am glad it: has been raised.
I can't I think you will appreciate-develop* a detailed
answer to it, but I am glad it has been raised, because the previous
questions in regard to our relations with Indonesia have been out
in regard to East Timor. And I believe that the issues in the
area to which you refer are in some sense more important. We have
adopted a position of saying here, you have an issue between two
sovereigi: indepE-ident countries. We have not sought to impose our
position upon them. And we've done that on the basis that the
evidence to this stage has been one of goodwill between the -two
countries, and in particular if I may say so from personal knowledge,
on the part of Prime Minister Somare a very positive attitude -towards
President Suharto, and Indonesia. , And so we hope -that the processes
between the two countries directly involved will involve a resolution
of this problem, and I still express the view that I think that's
what will happen. We have expressed to both countries our obvious
interest in the issue and our concern that: it does not lead to
difficulties and greater problems between the two. The two countries
, are aware of our interest and our attitude* And as for the question
of the role of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to
which you refer, it may be that there is a possibility of a greater
role there. But, I go back to my basic point that this is
something which really needs to be determined, hopefully, between
C the two countries involved. There is a tendency still for some
Australians to think of Papua New Guinea as something less than a
totally sovereign independent country. B3ecause of the relationship
we have we make a mistake it we'allow, even implicitly, that
Papua New Guinea is a completely sovereign independent nation, as is
Indonesia, and therefore the resolution of the problem between.-them
and their border must be basically between them. I simply say on
behalf of the Australian Government that we stand read, if between them
they feel there is some role that we. can nlay, stand ready to helo. But we
do. not believe that we should, as I say even implicitly, think -that
they anything less than a total right to solve the matter between
themselves.
QUESTION: Yet, Prime Minister there are sections of your Party
who don't seem to be cognizant of those sensitivities and wou: ld
seek to impose a view through a resolution at the National ConfEerence.
PM: Well, anyone who believes that resolutions at National Conference
are going to resolve issues are wrong. They are not.-But certai1ly
they are not going to resr'lvp issues between two other sovereign
independent nations. Perhaps if Igo back to the answers that I gave
earlier, that if we are to be concerned about the interest of t: he
people concerned that is ' in East Timor-the people of that
region and Irian Jaya, the people there in the border area,
.9
PM: cont
then we ought so to conduct ourselves in the way which maximises
the capacity for the Australian Government to be of practical and
constuctive assistance if we are sincere about wanting to help
the people concerned.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, does the Australian Government have
a view about the large scale trans-migration program that is
about to take off in Irian Jaya, and given the sensitivity of the
whole situation there and the effect that such a w1hl~ sale program
would have on a relatively small melanesian pr! eople of Irian Jaya
what is that Australian view, and have you expressed any view
to Jakarta?
PM: At a recent conference of the group of nations concerned with
Government assistance to Indonesia, the Australian delegation did
raise the question of what was the view of the Indonesian Government
about the importance of the trans-migration program. That was
raised, the question was raised, but Peter not in a way which could
carry tie implication that we can tell a sovereign independent nation
what it does about its internal, economic, demographic, social policies.
And if the Government of Indonesia was to start telling me what I
should do about our internal policies you could be assured that I
would on behalf of this country be making it quite clear that the
internal decisions internal economic, and social demographic
decisions-about Australia were the business of Australia. And I
would be very definite on behalf of this country in saying whether
it was to Indonesia, or to any other country, the decisions within
Australia are decisions to be made by the Government of Australia.
QUESTION: Sir, isn't that the same attitude that Mr Gromyko expressed
to Mr Hayden?
PM: Yes, it is I guess, and I would simply say that in regard to
the question of individual human rights that there is a question
which transcends international boundaries in terms of the rights
of nations'to express views about those is; sues of individual human
rights. And Bill Hayden was acting, not only with my complete support
but, in accordance with I think international standards in doing that.
I don't know that you can draw exactly the same parallel between
a question of how there is an abuse of individual human rights, and
a decision about a relocation program of people . frcin one part of a
country to another. As far as Indonesia is cDncerned is it being
put that there is not some basic general agreement that it makes
sense within Indonesia to look at a position where you've got this
great majority of some now 140 million people living on two islands.
You've got other areas which offer greater opportunities for
development in economic terms and individual terms. There is
obviously a sound argument for that sort of position. I don't think
you can equate that'Laurie', with the treatment of Sakharov which by
any standards is repugnant.
10
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, you've been critical in the past of human rights
violations'in the Soviet Union_ o you have a responsibility to
apply the same philosophy to human rights violations in Irian Jaya,
and I think particularly inc~ the case of Arnold Ap..
PM: If the evidence were available that you had an anal ' ag~ ods
situation in regard to Ap as you do in regard to Sakharov, and
I don't accept on the basis -of what's beenput before me, that* there is
an analogy yes, we would. You can't draw a distinction on the
question of the fundamental violation of human rights that's happening
in regard to Sakharov and say, well yes, we'll criticise that in
the Soviet Union but not somewhere else. All I can iay* isi that. on the
evidence that is available to me, and I think to the Foreign Minister,
you are not in a position to draw that analogy.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, going back to uranium. Is it realistic for
people in the Northern Territory to believe on purely economic
optimum and economic rights that the at luka and Coongarra mines
could be given the go-ahead and giv en /~ Iqeta eeomnshv
been suggested before.
PM: Well, as it's not going to be a proposition that will be put
at the conference or that I think wil. l be carried, well then as
far as the policy of the Party would be then it would not be
realistic to expect that.
QUESTION: Mr Hawke, a representtiv~ e of the Free West PapUa Movement,
Mr Uenk Joku when he was in Canberra earlier this week, mentioned that
he had hoped Australia would consider taking refugees in the future
direct from Irian Jaya? What was your reaction to that?
PM: Look, you are getting to the question of a purely hypothetical
question and I don't believe generally speaking that they are helpful.
What I must say, in answer to that is that I hope that* the situation in
Irian Jaya will be capable of being resolved in a way that is not
going to involve that sort of situation, and I repeat that my
Government stands ready, to try and be of assistance in ensuring that
appens. And I don't believe that interests of Australia, or-Indonesia
or Papua New Guinea is served by me going into that hypothetical
situation.