P. 2
" 88-4-22 00: 31 JjjuTA U( At
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF -PRESS CONFERENCE, INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL, LONDON,
21 APRIL 1986
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
Ladies and Gentlemen, I 1 t b'epfp S.
tAe. be available for your questioning.
My program today has been first of all to a meeting
with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Neil Kinnock, which
was essentially a private discussion covering a number of
matters of mutual interest.
fo0/ ov10WA9 that, I met with Sonny Ramphal, Secretary-
General of the. Commonwealth and, again, discussed a number
of matters there, Aparticularly at length the Eminent Persons
Group initiative in regard to South Africa.
I had the pleasure of meeting the Queen and Prince
Philip late this morning at Windsor Castle and then, this
afternoon, I have had the opportunity of having a meeting
i
with Mrs. Thatcher. There were just the two of us first
of all, discussing a number of matters, and then after that
a meeting at which she had with her Minister Channon,
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Mr. Jopling,
Minister for Agriculture; and Lady Young. And those discussions
were predominantly concerned with questions relating to trade
; n agricultural commodities generally and in regard to
the European Community in particular.
I am open to your questions. ' Ztz". 8^
-2-
QUESTION Prime Minister, the European Community Foreign
Ministers today to take further restrictions against
Libya, namely Con their movements and reduce the size of
their bureaux. We have already taken action, but would
you anticipate taking any further action against the.
Libyan Peoples Bureau in Canberra?
PRIME MINISTER
Well, I will be having discussions with the Security
Committee and with cabinet on a range of issues in this
area and it would not be appropriate for me to
preempt what decisions are likely to come out of those
meetings. But obviously you will recall that in January
Australia responded quite specifically to the suggestions
that various nations ought to consider the position of Libya.
We then cut down on the extent of representation in Australia.
We also undertook that Australian firms would not fill the gap
left by Americans withdrawing from the oil industry in Libya
and we will certainly be looking at this matter again, but
I repeat, I would wait for any specific decisions until I
return. QUESTION Prime Minister, the Non-Aligned Countries~ today
apparently in the United Nations agreed to back Libya.
What does this mean for our initiative in the Security Council?
P. 4
-3-
PRIME MINISTER Well, When you say the non-aligned nations decided
to back Libya, I have not had conveyed to me the text of
the resolution. I find it difficult to believe that all
the non-aligned nations would be saying: " We back Libya I
I will wait to hear from our representatives at the
United Nations what the representatives of the non-aligned
nations are saying and what that means, if anything, for the.
Contribution that wervmde at the United Nations. We made
certain suggestions there as to what we thought, looking to
the future, ought to take place. I find it difficult to
believe that people would not be able to see the merit of
approaches along those general lines.
QUESTION Prime Minister, was the Libyan issue discussed beJCC
4~. Ije3IVf .( sV~ oA Mrs. Thatcher?
PRIME MINISTER
, Yes, it was raised. It did not take up a lot of our
time.
QUESTION Did she ask you to take any action against Libyans in
Australia? PRIME MINISTER No, she did not.
.' 8-e4-22 00: 32
QUESTION Did you discuss South Africa arnd if so, what was
Mrs. Thatcher's general stance?
PRIME MINISTER
Yes, we did have quite a deal of discussion about
South Africa. And I want to, as you will appreciate, tread
the line between not going into matters which are properly
c onfidential and yet share with you the thrust of the
position. I was very pleased to see that Mrs. Thatcher
quite clearly believes that the initiative of the Eminent
Persons Group is intrinsically important. She believes,
with me, that it is really the last hope that there is for
a process of dialogue possibly to emerge, rather than the
awful alternative of bloodshed and violence. And from that
bas. is, therefore, * We licive a shared hope that the initiative
which we both believe has been carried through with eminent
skill by the participants in the Eminent Persons Group will
have the opportunity of coming to fruition, We both
rea'lise that it is in the nature of the case a very
difficult exercise fraught with enormous problems
and dangers. We agree that it will require positive
responses from both the South African regime and from the
various representatives of the non-white groups.
I am not trying to convey to you, by thoge observations,
that Mrs. Thatcher and I are at one in every aspect of our
interpretation about how this is going and the next steps.
I must say that I appreciate the very. considerable importance
.# 96-04-22 00: 33P. 6
which Mrs. Thatcher attaches to the initiative.!
IL a j e i.
I I L iA LC It~ I'~/ i
QUESTION Does she support the release of Nelson Mandela as a
prerequisite of some further political initiative?
PRIME MINISTER into
I did notin unequivocal terms.. go/ that point, but
I believe that she understands the significance of Nelson
Mandela in the development of the processes of dialogue to
which I refer, but I do not want to put words into her
mouth in answer to that specific question.
QUESTION What is your view L
what chances did Mrs. Thatcher give.....
PRIME MINISTER
Well I am a punting man, but I do not want to sort of
put tne odds on the board, but it is a very important
question. Let me take just a little while to give you
the perspective which I have of it.
Firstly, I believe that the initiative of the Eminent
Persons Group has now achieved a significance beyond what.
was imagined at the time that we put it in the Bahamas at
the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. One can
prove that in a number of ways, but most particularly
I believe by the fact that the-initiaPl., opposition from the
.166-04-22 00: 33P. -6-
ANC and others, perhaps an understandable Opposition. has
dissipated. Indeed, they have cooperated fully in the
processes of the work of the Eminent Persons Group. I
think there is a fairly general understanding now that
this initiative does offer the best hope of success or
as it has been put, is now the only game in town.
May I also background that by saying that in the
discussions I had with President Reagan and Secretary of
State Shdltz they indicated their unequivocal support for
the initiative and are attempting, in their way, to give
it their support by their communications with the South
African Government.
Now, the Group is representative; it is composed
of people with a wide range of experience and obviously
considerable skill, because their work has been commenited
on favourably by, if you like, both sides to the issue in
South Africa, but also by others like, for instance, the
United States Administration.
They have put a series of proposals to the
South African Government which, in essence, set out what
is seen as the necessary framework and initial steps for
processing further dialogue towards a peaceful resolution
of the issues which will need to be dealt with if you are
going to see the emergence of a new South Africa based
upon universal suffrage and the elimination of racial
discrimination.
P. 8
6& 04 22 00: 34 -7-
What stage has been reached, therefore, -now is that
the Eminent Persons Group is awaiting a response from the
South African Government.
If I can go directly into that part of your question
which sort of asked for a calling of the odds, my view is
that given all the factors that I have referred to thus far
which go to the success of the operation of the Group's
workings, I would expect that there should be a favourable
response from the South African Government. I find it
difficult to believe, in all those circumstances, that you
are going to get a flat repudiation of the work of the
Eminent Persons Group. Therefore, the essential question
will be in assessing the response: will the response of
the South African Government have gone far enough to give
confidence to all those of us who have been involved with
this initiative and have responsibilities in it to feel
that we have the basis for further work?
I do not feel confident to call the odds on that, but
I would say this: that I think the odds have improved
significantly since the initiative was put forward by me
in the Bahamas in the latter part of last year.
QUESTION Did you find that Mrs. Thatcher shared this view
about the odds improving significantly?
' 86G-04-22 00: 34P.
PRIME MINISTER
Well, you will appreciate that Mrs. Thatcher and I
would not talk in such uncouth terms as odds, but I would:
hope that what I have said to this point would indicate
that I think she is more optimistic about the process
now than perhaps she was before.
QUESTION Prime Minister, is there any response to the initiative
from the ANC as yet?
PRIME MINISTER The ANC, in the first place, expressed their
opposition to the initiative. They thought it was just a
subterfuge almost to put off serious processes of resolutioa.
but no, they have cooperated with the Eminent Persons Group
and have obviously indicated that they hope that the
initiative will work.
QUE ST ION
i L C I. 116~ 7(
PRIME MINISTER Well, it is a plus but it is not sufficient in itself. P. 9
'-86-04-22 00: 35 .0
-9-
QUESTION But the did the part of the proposal that had been
put forward
PRIME MINISTER
That is part or the approach by the Eminent Persons
Group, but I mean, it is not fair that I should go into the
details of what they have put. I repeat that no-one is
going to believe that the response in that area is sufficient.
QUESTION In relation to the rebel New Zealand tour of South
Africa, you said in Washington that Australia would not be
playing against rugby players involved in that tour.
Does this mean that the Government will seek to prevent
this year's Wallaby tour of New Zealand taking place
if any of the 30 rebels are included in the team, and does
it mean that we will seek to prevent New Zealanders from
coming to Australia for the World Cup next year if any of
the' 30 rebels are included in the All Black team?
PRIME MINISTER
I would want to discuss this issue with my Cabinet
colleagues at the appropriate time back in Australia, but
on my understanding and recollection of the specific terms
of the Gleneagles Agreement, it would not be appropriate
for Auctra1iai to be playing againat a aide, in Australia
certainly, which included people who had participated
. P8060-30--22 P.-
in that tour, but we will have to consider that in detail,
but that is my understanding of the letter and spirit of
Gleneagles.
QUESTION Prime Minister, did you discuss with Mrs. Thatcher
her visit to I'srael next month?
PRIME MINISTER
No, I did not.
QUESTION Would you contemplate a similar visit yourself?
PRIME MINISTER
The a'nswer to the first part of your question is no, I
did not discuss it. of course, I contemplate a visit to
the Middle East at some point. My interest in the
area is well known, but the timing of such a visit would
. be a matter for determination by me at the appropriate time.
QUESTION This year?
PRIME MINISTER
I have not addressed my mind as specifically as that
to it.. it is a possibility but it is not something that any
decision has been made about. I
.86-04-22 00: 36P. 12
QUESTION Does that mean you would visit countries other than
Israel?
PRIME MINISTER
If I went to visit Israel, of course I would visit
countries in tile Middle East other than-Israel.
QUESTION Prime Minister, did you discuss the Common
Agricultural Policy with Mrs. Thatcher?
PRIME MINISTER Yes I did. That discussion took place more
specifically when the others were present, other Ministers.
Let me put it this way: as we expected, there is very
considerable common ground between my Government, Mrs.
Thatcher and her Government. The British
Government realises that the Common Agricultural Policy
does not involve a rational allocation of resources. It
must understand thait in 1-hp laqt year it involved comothing
like $ 70 billion in terms of taxpayers, funds and a
transfer of income from consumers to farmers. That is an
enormous amount of, money and that is appreciated by Mrs.
Thatcher and her Government and let me make it clear that
having the same basis of understanding of the inappropriateness
of that policy and the misallocation, of resources that it
' 86-M4-22 01: 42P. -12-
involves,* Mrs. Thatcher did not want to leave me or
my colleagues with the impression that we were going to
have an easy job. that is we the British, ourselves
and others who wanted to change that were going to have an
easy job in changing it, but she has the view, which I share,
that we must be persistent about this and I say that
particularly to the Australian contingen t here. I do not
believe that we can expect, just by going to Brussels
tomorrow, that we are going to effect immediate changes.
It is a job for persistent and consistent advocacy and I am
pleased, as a result of the discussion I have had today with
Mrs. Thatcher and her Ministerial colkagues, that essentially
we can, from Australia, anticipate a basic support
from the British Government in the positions that we put.
' 636-04-22 01: 43 P. 3
J OU RN A ST: what about thec inclusion of aigriculture in the
forthcoming rouund of [ IThs and did y'ou get daY assUraicLUS
about raising it at the Tokyo Summit?
ipM: In rogard to both those questions. le t mne take Ithemn in
chronologjian, order. The SuriniL T indicated t~ o Mrs Thatcher that out
Ofiy discussions with President Reaqa, we were hoping that
there would a move there to have the question of iiitti'tational
trade in agricultural products discussed at ' Tokyo, and Mrs
Thatcher indicated that she would bo supportLive of tLtat posit-ion.
Secondly, in regurd La the MTN, unequivocaily, the view of
Mrs Thatcher and her government is that agriculLure should be ini
next MTN round and jL should have a prominent place.
JOURNA1,1ST: is your, cast) based on the dumping of European food
surplus~ es on world markets or a lack of access to EC
marke ts?
PM: No it, is more complex than that. Let me quickly run through it.
You say about the loss of access to Eur-opouan markets. We originally,
of course, had substantiAal markets in Europe and as Europe moved
towards seif-sufriency in the production of agricultural. products.
by definition, we lost markets. And rOhat, to somte extent., was
understandable. We didn't like' it. Our coIicoVI1 doveloped
very signiticaent) y though when the CAP developed in a way which
inkant that the niassive subsidies LO fZrMEL'S inl EuropeC IrOVided the
incentive together with the increased productivi ty that is associated
wit~ h their efforts, to the selling of largo quantities of subsidised
agricultural products in third markets. Arid that of course has cost
us dearly. The estimate by our Bureau of Agricultural
Economics is that in e-ach 0o: the last five years t. hese policies
have cost us one billion dollars per annum which an enormous price
for Australian farmers anid Aust. ral ia generally to pay. But our
concern gocs even beyond thaL. we % peak not onl~ y from the
natural enough basis of our own self-interest, and the loss to out'
economy and our farmers, but we also take the view that the
CAP involves, as I say, a massive misallocation of resources
within Europe because of this $ 70 billion per annumn subsidy via
taxpayer, via consuimer to farmer. thal-meanis that you haven't qot
the optimum allocation of resourccs. Arid the best estimai. es Lhat
we can make is that there are Probably a million less people employed
in Europe as a result of that misajs. ocatLionl of resources than
otherwise would be the case. So really, thorefore. if you like,
the Australian position is one iti which wei bring together to the
argument and the analysis a combination of our own admitted selfinterest,
that is the self -interest. of a country which has the world's
most eicetagricultural producers, we don't subsidise
our exporters. We are being huirt.. But we bring that. self-interest
together witLh a view that te interests of Europe iftself are being
hurt Lhe CAP.
JOURNALISTr: What specific demands will you makingy of the
Communi ty?
PM: + We don't mnake demands. We are riot in a position where we
can go to Brussels nor would 1, that is riot my tactic Lo qo
and demand what I will be doing on behalf of, riot merely
AtxatraLilo. but I think of a much wider oonotituonov. I % jIi ] bo tryVing
to say the Europeans firstly, while you hav + e got thils policy, please
' 8~ rz-04-22 01: 42
PM cont: Lake into greater account the interests of efficient,
non-subsidising producers like Australia. Secondly, we will be asking
of them that they should be analysing the growing burden of
CAP upon Europe itself. And that they should be analysing
and moving towards the reduction of that burden internally.
Thirdly, I will be asking that they should be supporting the bringing
forward of international trade in agricultural products into the
MTN round. And finalLy, we would be asking that as hopefully they
move to diminish and get rid of their surplus stockpiles, that that
should be done in the most orderly fashion to diminish the impact
upon others like ourselves. Those are the range of things that I
will be talking about, not making demands.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hlawke, how did the meeting with the Queen go. Did
we give her a present the Australian Government?
PM: I gave her personially a pr-esent which I am pleased to say
appeared to give her great enjoyment. And I don't know about the
protocol of these things, I hope she will excuse nio
if I say'what it is. It is a map of Australia made up of
brass pieces, the pieces are in the forms of Australian flora and
faunia, so it it puzzle. That is not altogether inappropriate
when you are talking about Australia, but I was pleased to see
the joy that she got from it and I hope that it gives her and her
family a great deal of pleasure.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, back on the South African issue. Do
you expect that South Africa will actually accept all the points
put to it by the group?
PM: That really goes to a part of the answer I gave that I would
hope, because I believe that the points that have been put by the
group are all reasonable. I wuld hope that they could accept all
the points. Anid that is how, as I said, the essential question is
going to be an assessment of the degree to which the response of
the South African Government is responsive enough and positive
enocugh to enable the Commonwealth to say, well that is enough to
keel) going. And not only the Commonwealth, but the
representatives of the non-white will all need to be satisfied there
is sufficient response to keep going. So the initiative would not
die if every single elemen~ t was not accepted but there would need
to be. I believe, very substantial acceptance.
JOURNALIST: Does the proposal provide a time frame for change in
South Africa?
PM:' There are not rigid time frames in it, no.
JOURNALIST: Dlo you and Mrs Thatchcu perhiaps hold different views
on what sort response the South African government would go far
enough? PM: I think I am niot being unfair to Mrs Thatcher to'say on the
basis of the public record of Lhe discussions, that my idea of the
progress would require somewhat more than Mrs ihatcher's. B~ ut,
I don't want to try and quantify that. And to be fair to Mrs
Thatcher, arid I'don't leave any impression that she doesn't
believe that change doesn't have to be made.
JOURNALIST: Could that create some difficulties, do you think.
when you all, meet to discuss tho maLter?
PM: Of course, when you have a number of people meeting and
they have different emphases it is harder than if you all Lhink
exactly the same way. That is obvious.
JOURNALIST: Are you already considering the extension of the mandate
of the group?
PM: NO, I am not considering that. And I don't think we should
approach it in terms of thinking about some on-going mandate
because that, if you had that perception and expressed it
at this point, that of itself, could constitute a slowing down, a
decelerating factor, where all the evidence, all the realities are
that I think we are running out of time.
PM JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did you discuss at all any progress
on Maralinga in your consultations?
PM: No, I didn't. It was not because I didn't have it as a
potential item on the agenda but really the talks that took place
here in January with Senator Evans, my Minister'for Resources
and Energy represented the Australian Government, went so well
that we didn't have any problems on our plate. There was
positive cooperation from the British Government. They were
appreciative of the way we were approaching it and the
technical advisory group has met and there is a proposal for an
interim report by May of this year. So, in other words, I
wasn't faced with some problem situation that needed discussion.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, have you got any feedback from the
other countries that are represented on the EPG in terms of
how they view the initiative?
PM: Only indirectly. I have had discussions, as you know, with
Malcolm Fraser including a telephone discussion with him in Washington
and the view seems to be that the members of the group all believe
that the progress in their work has been satisfactory. That seem
to reflect the views of their government and most significantly,
in response to your question, in the discussion I had
with Sonny Ramphal today, he was, I think effusive is not too strong a
word about the success of the actual operations of the group to
this point. Let me make it clear, he is not saying that it is
going to work, but as far as the actual operation of the
group, the'way it has gone about its task. ho could not, I
think be more effusive in his praise. And that I think, reflects
the sorts of discussions, also, that he has had with governments
as well.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you said there was no rigid time frame.
Can you give us a bit more on that?
PM: No, it is not appropriate to go to the details of the proposals.
They have been sent to the government of South Africa.
1 don't want to say or do anything now which is going to
perhaps make more difficult positive progress there. But
the point I do want to emphasise when you talk about timetables
is this, that I think it is more and
more the common view, certainly I say from my discussions with the
US Administration, it is their view and the view of others that
the sort of timetable that people had before them and I am
not talking about the timetable of the Eminent Persons Group, but
.' 86-04-22 00: 39P. 16
' 86-04-22 00: 39P. 1 7
PM con the sort; of Lime framtes that people had in their minds
about what was availabl~ e within which you could bc thinking of a
resolution of South Africa has changed. I think there is, more
and more, an understan~ ding now that that time frame is short. ThO'
people, i~ he non-white population of South AFrica and their
supporters in the front line -states have not got unlimiLed
patience. Nor should thoy have. Arid the sorts of things that have
been happening in South Africa, the killings, the violence, are such
that we all have to understand, .1 believe, that there is a limited
amount of time. And I think less time now as we talk about IL in
April of 1986 than we may even have thught 6 nionLhs ago.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minist. er. did the Americans give any indication
that they were willing to change their stance
P'M: We didn't neced to qo, didn't in the sort of discussion
I was having, to be as specific as that. But let me say this, the
Americans were quite unequivocail in the support they gave to the
Eminent Persons Group intiatives. They believe it was the
riyht approach. TPhey had made contact with the South AFrican
governmeit, to indicate the support of the United States Administration
for this approT-ach. Anid so I think that the fact that they see Lhat
this is really, in association with some of the thing., they are
doing themselves, the last sort of opportuni ty we have
got for dialogue, that carries in a sense its own imp. lications.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hlawke, you go to Brussels tomorrow, and then you
go on 1, o Rome. When in Rome will you take the opportunity to have
talks with the Australian Ambassador on certain fratlers surrounding
the bohaviour of Mr Dawkins?
PM: NO. I don't intend to do that. I am going to Rome on the
assignment that 1 set out for from Australia.
And that es'enti~ j1l)' haz throo p. 2rtc. Fir~ itly, to tall, about
agricultural ma:-tters because Italy is an important. member of the
European Community. Secondly, to sign the reciprocal social
security agreement. And thirdly, to talk about matters of bi lateral
interest beLween us. And tLhose matters are all of very considorable
importance. And that is what I will be using my time in Rome to
do-at with.
JOURNALIST: Mr H-awke, sharp distinction between the response
of the Austral ian Labor Party and the British Labour Party to
the American bombing of Tripoli. When this was discussed this
morning with Mr Kinnock, did you just agree to disagree or did you
seek to* persuade each other..
PM: No, it was a very civilised and friendly, fraternal
di scuss ion. And there were don't talk about. points of disagreement
there were different emphases but there were many things on which
we agreed.
JOURNALIST: D~ id youi discuss the nuclear testing and the test ban
treaty with Mrs Thatcher?
PM: We talked, in that, area we talked about these things. We talked
about the nuclear testing, specifically, in the context of
the South Pacific Nuclear Froe Zone Treaty. And I urged upon Mrs
Thatcher that the British Government should give very
favourable consideration to the approaches -that had been mnade to
it on behalf of the countries of thie South Pa8cific Forum for the
accession of the British Government to the three protocols
' 86-04-22 00: 40 P. 18
PM cont: attached to the treaty. I discussed that at some length.
The other context within which the question of nuclear matters arose,
was we talked about the East-West arms talks. I put to Mrs
Thatcher that while I believed that in the Gorbachev
proposals of earlier this year there certain elements of propaganda,
nevertheless were some points of substance within them that were
worth pursuing. That we had said this to the President of
the United States and I expressed my satisfaction that the
President of the United States had himself said both publicly
and privately the same thing. And they had an intention to
pursue these discussions, that they did this with the full support of
Australia. And that essentially was Mrs Thatcher's position.
So they were the two contexts within which I spoke.
JOURNALIST: In the discussions with Mrs Thatcher on Libya, did you
have any to put viewpoints either approving or disapproving
on Britain's part in the American
I haven't been around on the international stage for a great
period of Lime, but I have been around long enough to
know that I wouldn't approve of someone coming in to my country
and telling me what they thought of my policies. And I don't
expect that Mrs Thatcher would regard it as appropriate for me
to be coming and telling her what I thought of hers.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, orn trade. Despite the assurances you have
. from Mrs Thatcher on the inclusion of agriculture as key element
. in the MTNs, is the fact that the European Commission, the fact
that it has refused to have the CAP exposed in any way to the
pLiuc tses of negociacion in tne MTINs in any way
diminish the value of those negotiations or their outcome?
PM: You will remember the phrase that was used by the Community
last year when they were discussing this matter. It depends
which sort of paicyLaOp1 uf Llit phrase you looked at to wnetner it
was appropriate under that decision by the Community
for the CAP in agricultural matters to be included in the
discussion. Of course, I tLak the view that lthe. r: ic.
sufficihnt in the actual words they use for it to be quite consistent
on the part of the Community for agriculture to be not only
the agenda but to prominent on the agenda in the MTN. The important
thing is that is certainly the position that we adopt, the position
which Britain says it adopts and certainly the position of the United
States. JOURNAI. TST: Mr Hawke, what was Mrs Thatcher's reply on the
protocols? PM: She didn't give me a reply. 1 think it would be fair to say
that she is not a great fan of nuclear free zone treaties. But 1
was able to point out to her and did the total consistency
of the treaty with our alliance relationship under ANZUS
with the United States. That didn't inhibit our rights and
obligations under that treaty. And so 1 am hopeful that she
will give perhaps a more positive consideration to these
matters than she may otherwise have done. But she didn't give me
any final answer.
JOURNALIST: Mr liawke, there is some concqrn in Lhis counLry
amongst politicians and Journalists about the degree of
foreign ownership ' of the media, particularly Australian
ownership, of the media hce. I was wondering if I could have your
comnents on that?
PM: I have been here talking a moment ago about the need for
international free trade. Now how can I possibly,
having come all the way around the world to argue the case of
freedom iii internaLional trade, say that I am against freedom of
commurce in the media. It seems to me perfectly reasonable.
JOURNALIST: Are you going to apply that policy?
PM: Do apply it now. I mean, if we have people
overseas with interests in all sor-Ls of areas of Australian activity
JOUHNALIST: Would you allow them to have a majority interest in
a television station?
PM: I don't know about that. We have a tribunal which is
there to look at these things, the Australian Broadcasting
Tribunal, and I would be very much guided by the wisdom that
resides in that august body.
JOURNALIST: But aren't they, in fact, guided by legislation which
sets our ownership requirements?
PM: Yes, but it they were to say to us that they thought we should
be taking a particular view about this, and having another
look at it, I would do so. But here, again, I don't want. to
get into the questions of who should be owning what in Britain as
far as the media is concerned. Or, T suppose, even more
importantly, how they should be exercising that ownership.
JOURNALIST: Are you worried at all by the British perception of
Australian media ownership, perhaps affected
PM: I am not quite sure about what this Australian
media ownership is. Ruport Murdoch is not azi Australian citizen.
JOURNALIST: Yes, but. he is an Australian.
PM: He is not an Australian citizen.
JOURNALIST: But people see him as an Australian. He is known as
the " dirty digger" in this country.
PM: They should be thinking about him as the gorgeous 1l. He
has renounced his Australian citizenship.
JOURNAIST: But you don't think that this has an anti-Australian
affect amongst British people.
PM: I wouldn't have thought so any more than we don't visit the
sins or heap the glories of particular individuals upon their
country and say well look . just because he has done the right thing
their country is marvellous. AFLerall.,. you can think of the dangers
7
IY PM cant: that that would get you into if voiu thinU ^ r the ) oglc
of that. Just because a person came frouia particular country and
you said the country is to be judged by that individual. Just
imagine where that would get you. I don't want to expand
on that but you have obviously got a febrile imagination. Just
think about where that could get you.
ends GV: TO 22-00-98,