-r29 / aci
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 9 MARCH
1989 E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke what were the factors that caused..
to state your concerns about the Protocols?
PM: let me make clear what the Protocol 1 of the Geneva
Convention does. It relates to the treatment of civilians
and civilian targets in war time and it's designed to
prevent attacks on them. The decision to sign it was taken
by the previous Liberal Government. This Government took a
decision in principle to ratify some time ago but we delayed
a final decision pending very extensive consultations with
our friends in the United States. Six NATO countries have
already ratified it and others a-re expected to. We expect
to make an explanatory statement at the time of ratification
to clear up any possible residual problems on
interoperability. Our military advisers are confident, I'm
advised, that Australia's adherence to the Protocol will not
adversely effect interoperability and they strongly endorse
ratification. I think if you consider each of those points
you'll see why we've adopted the position we have.
JOURNALIST: What do they mean by interoperability?
PM: What do they mean by interoperability? It's not a
complex -I mean I must confess Milton that at times when we
get into the area of military strategic discussion I have to
think a bit about some of the terms, they get rather
esoteric. But interoperability is not a difficult one, it
doesn't come into that category. It means the way in which
the forces of one type of the alliance actually operate in
war with another.
JOURNALIST: Well isn't that a matter of major concern to
Australia? PM: If it hadn't been a matter of major concern as to the
possible impact upon it then we wouldn't have had all these
discussions. I guess if it was a matter of such concern
that it made it questionable as to whether you could have
effective interoperability I guess 6 NATO countries wouldn't
have signed. I guess if it had been a fact that it would
have adverse impacts on interoperability our Defence Force
people wouldn't have been in favour of signing it. They
are. JOURNALIST: inaudible
-2-
PM: There's not much more in that one is there.
JOURNALIST: Are you concerned at all Mr Hawke about the way
your Minister, Mr Punch, has handled the Sydney Airport
issue, and do you think that there has been at least some
scope for improvement in his performance?
PM: No the only criticism I would have is of what would've
appeared at one stage in public, not in the Parliament, to
have been a pre-emption of a consideration by the Cabinet of
all the options. Now that was the only criticism and I've
mentioned that to him as I thought it was not wise to have
conveyed an impression that all the options wouldn't be on
the table. But apart from that no I have no reason to
question his performance. I have confidence in him. I
thought he handled himself very well in Parliament
yesterday. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke what is you view on third runway
PM: It will be expressed in the Cabinet.
JOURNALIST: Will that decision be finalised today?
PM: I don't know whether it will be finalised today
Michelle. It is an extremely I mean there won't be any
argument about this, it's an extremely complex issue. It's
one which I want to allow to all my ministers a full
opportunity for discussion and consideration. If I judged
that there hasn't been enough time by the end of this
evening when we will be considering it tonight in the
Cabinet then more time will be given. But I can assure
you and the Australian public that the decision will be made
in the very near future. If it's not made this evening it
will be made within the week.
JOURNALIST: that the Government here is driven by
politics rather than considerations of national interest?
PM: I repudiate it completely. It is an obscenity of an
argument because with a thing like this there is no way I
or would I allow any of my ministers to make a decision
simply on political grounds. I mean all decisions that
governments make it would be dishonest to say that some
elements of political considerations don't come into it of
course they will. But as far as I'm concerned the decision
will be made on the basis of what is best for this country
and I can assure you that in regard to this issue those who
would seek to paint it as one which is made simply in terms
of which decision offends the least people or gets the most
kudos from others, are completely on the wrong runway.
JOURNALIST: Was it not unwise to put Mr Punch in that job?
-3-
PM: of course it was not unwise to put him in that job. I
was conscious when I was allocating the portfolios that his
interests and involvement in this area and I referred to
it at the time and indicated that all these things had to
be handled according to their merits. Now the fact that he
has a view will have nothing to do with the decision of the
Cabinet I think Laurie that you appreciate the political
realities of knowing the make-up of the Cabinet. I don't
think you would believe that the Cabinet and the people in
the Cabinet would have their position determined by the
attitude of Mr Punch.
JOURNALIST: vested interest than a view?
PM: Well he obviously has an interest from his own
particular point of view as a member It would be stupid
to deny that. But this submission has been prepared by and
will be presented to the Cabinet by Mr Willis. As a member
of the portfolio Mr Punch will be in the Cabinet but he will
not be making a decision on this. Mr Willis has the
carriage of it in the Cabinet.
JOURNALIST: Is the third runway still an option?
PM: Well let me put it this way. It is an option which I
insisted there was no problem about insisting on it
we've accepted that that's the way it had to be. But I want
every option and the arguments for and against before the
Cabinet. There is no way that this matter will be decided
on the basis of simply saying " well someone has a preference
for one and doesn't like the other so only the one will be
there". All the options, as I say, with all the pros and
cons will be there.
JOURNALIST: Do you believe Badgerys Creek can be built in
four years or three years or whatever
PM: If you have some doubt let there be no doubt as to
what's been said. No-one is saying that from the point of
decision that Badgerys Creek could be built in three years.
No-one is or has said that. It could not be.
JOURNALIST: You'd be well aware of the history of the whole
thing PM: But make it also clear nor could the third runway.
JOURNALIST: But you'd be well aware of the history of the
whole episode going back at least to the Whitlam Government
in considering
PM: And before, yes.
JOURNALIST: Would you concede that this decision should've
been made actually a long time ago?
PM: It should've been made before this Government came into
office. Let it be said this is the first government which
has made a relevant decision in respect of the expansion of
airport facilities to meet the needs of Sydney. That is by
the decision that we have taken and which we've already
acted upon to acquire land at Badgerys Creek. A decision
like that should've been taken before hand. Because
remember this, it seems to be overlooked and it certainly
was overlooked in the discussion and debate and observations
of the Parliament yesterday, no-one, no-one involved in this
discussion and debate is arguing that you will not need to
have Badgerys Creek. The arguments are simply whether it is
a third runway plus Badgerys Creek at some time. It was
this Government which was the first and should've been done
before hand by previous governments, to take some steps to
acquire the additional land for additional capacity.
Because no-one and I repeat no-one is arguing that Badgerys
Creek will not at some stage have to be built. It will.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke if neither of those options can be
done quickly is there anything that you can do in the
interim PM: Yes there are some things that will be done and they'll
be announced.
JOURNALIST: Can Sydney afford and indeed Australia
afford the economic cost of waiting until Badgerys Creek is
ready when a third runway at Sydney must be a quicker
option? PM: Well on what do you base that? There is no evidence
whatsoever. I mean that's nice to say and I don't intend to
be in saying this. But one of the unfortunate things in
this discussion has been the mindless, uninformed
assumptions that are made by many people, and that's on both
sides of the argument. The mindlessness hasn't been
confined to one side. Now there is no evidence available to
support the assumption that the third runway can be built
quicker than a facility at Badgerys Creek. Because you've
got to take into account the period and quite considerable
period that would be involved in an environmental impact
statement in regard to a third runway at Kingsford-Smith. I
repeat there is no basis for the assumption which seems to
be explicit or implicit in so many positions on this. The
third runway at Kingsford-Smith, click you fingers, there it
is, Badgerys Creek much longer. It's not accurate.
JOURNALIST: Can the Government afford to fast track
Badgerys Creek?
PM: There are ways, I believe, in which this would be
capable of being done. But it involves questions not only
of government but there's a limit to how far obviously I can
go in all of this discussion. I mean I don't want to be not
forthcoming in regard to your questions. As you can see I
have been responding to your questions. But an amount of
( PM cont) the detail which is involved in that particular
question but I'm not prepared to go to it in any detail.
But let me simply say this in regard to fast tracking,
that's one element that's on the table.
JOURNALIST: On another subject Prime Minister. What's the
Government going to do about militant Muslims that are
threatening Australians in Australia?
PM: The position let me repeat the position Laurie. If
any Australian citizen or group of Australian citizens
infringes the law in terms of their atttides to others in
the position of my Government and I'm sure it would be the
postion of the State Governments and it does seem to have
arisen more particularly in Sydney, I'm sure it would be the
attitide of Mr Greiner and his Government, but if any
citizen or group of citizens infringes the law then the law
should take its course. You have the difficult and fine
line position which I think you'll appreciate Laurie and
this is in the sense at the heart of the Rushdie affair
itself that what distinguishes our country from others,
including Iran for that matter, is our total commitment to
the right of free expression, and that expression of oral
and written, provided as I say it's not infringing the law.
Now provided that individual groups express their view on
this issue without infringing the law then an essential part
of our position is that that should be allowed.
JOURNALIST: What about the comments of Mr Javed Chaudry
last night? How do you react to those
PM: Well I must say I was offended by them, reading them
this morning. It would be a question however of the law.
Simply because I'm offended by what someone says is not a
basis for action. After all, if that was the case, half of
you wouldn't be here because you've offended me at times.
But to be offended is not a cause for legal action. I mean
God where would we finish up?
JOURNALIST: Is there clause to protect the booksellers who
have been threatened by
PM: Well look Laurie, I mean there's obviously the legal
question involved here. I can't pretend just standing here
at the forum in answer to a very legitimate question that
you put, to answer whether there has been an infringement of
law, it ought to be looked at. If there is an infringement
of law, action ought to be taken.
JOURNALIST: But there has been a threat. Are you going to
PM: Well obvio * usly in the area involved here it is more
probably a matter of State jurisdiction and that's not said
to avoid the issue. If there is any infringement of a
Federal law which could involve Federal action, then that
should be taken. I'll obviously, when these things happen,
I get reports coming to me. There'll be a report to me
today no doubt and I can say to you quite clearly, if I was
advised that there is an infringement of Federal law then I
would expect action to be taken. Similarly, Laurie, I would
expect that if there is an infringement of a State law, I
would expect action to be taken. We are in this area of
fine line where expressions of view are not necessarily an
infringement of the law. I mean probably you it may not
have happened in your case but you at times may have said
things which of course thump you in the bloody nose.
I'd be surprised if they had because you're such a
reasonable bloke in what you say. But threats can be made
which don't necessarily involve a breaking of the law. But
I repeat, because this is a matter of fundamental
importance, the right of Australians themselves to have, to
be able to speak freely, to write freely and to disseminate
freely. I mean that is something that I regard as
fundamental. If anything has happened against the law in
that respect then I would want action to be taken.
JOURNALIST: Just looking beyond the law for a moment to the
immigration program are you concerned at all that you may be
recruiting people to come to this country who have very very
different sets of values and that this may pose some sort of
problem? PM: Well the question of different sets of values of course
of itself is a difficult thing because this country is not
going to become one under this Government in which we are
demanding adherence to one set of values. I mean, the
majority of people in this country would be adherents to the
Judean-Christian ethic and practice and beliefs. A very
significant proportion of this country have either none or
different so we are not going to have uniformity. The
critical test Paul is this, that if there was an evidence of
recruitment of people committed to the processes of
violence, then that would not be * acceptable. If I had such
evidence I would require action to be taken to see that that
sort was stopped.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister would you adopt Mr Saunderson's
suggestion that in anticipation of any ruling by the ABC
next week about transition legislation to the Bond network?
PM: No this Government hasn't operated on the basis of
moving legislation following speeches made by backbenchers.
That's not the way we go about forming legislation.
JOURNALIST: Could it be a problem though Sir if Mr
PM: Well that's a different question. It's a hypothetical
one which I'm not going
-7-
JOURNALIST: Prime minister you've had a chance now to
Senate report on the ATSIC legislation, will the Government
go ahead with that body, do you anticipate the changes that
will be made to the Bill to be major changes or minor
changes and when do you think those decisions will be taken?
PM: I have had a chance to have a preliminary look, but I
still to have discussions in detail with the Minister,
Michelle, and I am not going to make any statement or
foreshadow any positions until I've had that opportunity of
both discussing it with him and with other Ministers. But
let me say this, it would be my presumption and intention
that the legisation should proceed with whatever amendments
we, as a Government, decide are appropriate in the
circumstances. After whatever consultation may in the
circumstances, further consultation, it may be necessary
with the Aboriginal community.
JOURNALIST: Do you think another major round may be
necessary? PM: I'm not sure at this stage. I simply repeat I haven't
yet had detailed discussions with the Minister and I can't
answer that until I've done that.
JOURNALIST: Are you concerned about the very strong
criticism in the majority report about the lack of adequate
consultation? PM: Yes, one must be concerned. I must say that on the
basis of my knowledge the consultations were extensive. I
mean the minister reported to me on a number of occasions,
both on the number and the nature of the consultations and I
certainly form the impression from those discussions and
from the comments of others who are involved in them that
they had been extensive. There does seem to be some
difference of view on this but I find it very difficult, on
the basis of my knowledge, to be critical of the Minister as
to the extent and nature of the consultations on the
knowledge that I have. They were both extensive and, as far
as I could judge, effective.
JOURNALIST: Do you see any need for consultation with the
States on this legislation?
PM: Well there has been forms of consultation. The
Minister discussed a whole range of matters with his
counterparts in the States. As to whether further
consultation is necessary that would be something that I
would need to,...... conclusion which I'd need to come on the
basis of further discussions with him. I can't answer the
question, authoritatively, until I have discussed the matter
with the minister.
JOURNALIST: Have you told Paul Keating not to dispute
rulings by the Speaker?
PM: No I haven't told Paul Keating how to behave himself in
the Parliament.
JOURNALIST: If there was a situation such as the Cope
situation and one of your Ministers was named, would you
back the Speaker?
PM: That seems to me, just prima facie, to be a very, very
hypothetical question Laurie.
JOURNALIST: Not too hypothetical after yesterday is it
Prime Minister?
PM: Well I don't know. Let me just, as yesterday's events
have been raised, let me just make this point which I think
is appreciated by those of you who have watched the affairs
of this Parliament now over some period of time. The
fundamental point that has to be understood is that by
deliberate decision, by deliberate decision, the Opposition
has decided to attempt to create a different form of
Parliamentary proceedings. I am not a member of the
Parliament for an extraordinarily long time, others are, but
I have been a close follower, listener to Parliamentary
proceedings for a very long time, and to the best of my
knowledge there has never been a situation as that which the
Opposition has attempted to create. They are totally
incapable of handling Question Time as all preceeding
oppositions have been capable of handling it. That is that
all preceeding oppositions have been able to use Question
Time effectively to probe Ministers by asking questions
about policies based upon the fact that they themselves have
policy positions. Oppositions have said ' well here's our
position, there's the Government position, we're going to
hammer the Government on questions of policy from a basis of
our own policy position'. Now that's been the basis of the
way in which Question Time has operated in this place from
Sday one. But now we have, for the first time, an Opposition
which has demonstrably proved itself incapable of operating
as every other opposition before it has. Why? The simple
reason is, it has no policy positions. None. Let's look at
the existing critically important area of economic policy.
What's the essence of economic policy? When you get down to
the guts of it, it's a question of what's your fiscal
policy, what are you going to raise from the public either
for personal tax, company tax or other forms of tax and how
are you going to spend it and how are you going to adjust
the relationship between the two? That's the very guts of
Government. Now on that critical area, not only do you have
no policy on the part of the Opposition, but more
importantly than that you have now exposed a fundamental
difference of view within the Opposition. You have the
Shadow Treasurer who seems to be really a Shadow, Shadow,
Shadow Treasurer because you have Hewson, the Shadow Finance
Minister saying ' well we' with the obvious compliance of his
leader, ' we probably won't really reach our position, final
position on tax or on what we do on the outlay side. We'll
-9-
( PM cont) probably leave all that in some sort of a limbo
until after the election'. But the Shadow Treasurer who
presumably in these matters should have the real running,
saying ' well that's not right, don't talk to Hewson, talk to
me'. So there you have the public indication of their
unreadiness, their lack of preparation, compare it with what
was being said last year, both by their leader and by their
external Party President Elliott. Unequivocal commitments
last year to have their positions publicly stated by August
of last year, August of 1988. We're now March of 1989, no
further down the track. Indeed, regressed because now
saying ' well we mightn't have our policies prepared at all
before the election'. So there is the core of the problem
which differentiates this Opposition from every previous
opposition. Having no policy position themselves, they have
no basis, no basis whatsoever to do what every previous
opposition has done. To question the Government from their
policy position, probe weaknesses. What have they decided
to put in its place? For the first time ever, they have
decided to put in place, not being able to do or perform the
traditional function of an opposition, organised
pandemonium. Ministers can hardly start an answer before
the cacophony of hee-haws and mindless laughter, giggles
based on ignorance start. Points of order, manifestly not
wellfounded. Now obviously that position places strains on
the rest of the organisation and not least upon Madam
Speaker. I accept that our behaviour in six years of
Government hasn't been perfect and you know I'm always
prepared to say that we're not perfect, we make mistakes.
We have made mistakes including myself, but what I want to
say is that those mistakes are made within an historically
unique situation and may I say, I want to say in regard to
the Speaker that I feel very sorry for her that she is, in a
sense, the victim of the basic inadequacy, incompetence and
historically unrivalled incompetence and unprincipled nature
of this Opposition.
JOURNALIST: I'm not trying to do a Tuckey and harp on
relevance but you haven't really answered the question.
Will you give a guarantee that you will back the Speaker
even if she felt it necessary to discipline one of your
ministers? PM: I believe that that would be the appropriate course of
action. JOURNALIST: That's a guarantee?
PM: I don't in advance Laurie answer hypothetical questions
and I don't really think that you would expect me to. I
would need to know every circumstance that was involved at
the time but certainly what you put is what I would expect
to happen.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, did your Government receive
representations from either Mr Kelty or Justice Maddern
about Justice Staples and if judges of the Industrial
Relations Commission aren't really judges as you said last
week are you still going to continue to pay them the same
salary and allowance as Federal Court judges?
PM: I didn't receive any submissions from Kelty or the
Commission about Staples. I don't know whether any of my
Ministers did, I certainly personally didn't receive any.
Let's make it quite clear, don't let's have the discussion
muddied in any way Milton by the use of the word ' judge'
implying that he held a judicial position. He didn't, and
he doesn't, never held a judicial position, not a judicial
body. So don't let's muddy the waters by reference to
judicial positions. Secondly let's make it clear, the fact
that Staples was, as it were, unemployed was not a decision
of this Government or of the previous government. It was as
a result of successive decisions by successive presidents of
the tribunal. It was their decision and as you know and as
I said in my answer in the Parliament, the previous
government had not only acknowledged but facilitated these
positions, first of all by sending him off on some overseas
trip and then secondly by an amendment of the legislation to
facilitate the action of the president of the commission in
making the decisions affecting Staples. So those are the
facts. Not judicial and not action of the Government
decisions of the Commission. In those circumstances we took
the legislative action that's been involved and out of which
comes this controversy. Now in those circumstances the
results are automatic.
JOURNALIST: The others aren't judges either that follows
from what you said. Will you continue to pay them the same
rate of pay as Federal Court judges?
PM: The question of the remuneration of High Court judges,
Federal Court judges and members of these other tribunals is
something that will be decided by the Cabinet in the
relatively near future.
JOURNALIST: You've emphasised Mr Hawke that your tax
package is particularly directed at families. Is it
possible that you could look at, in this context, family
allowances as well as the tax structure itself?
PM: Yes, it's conceivable it will have to be looked at
Michelle but I'm obviously not going to say in advance what
it is we're going to do. But the answer to your question is
yes it's conceivable that that can be looked at as well.
JOURNALIST: Have you had a chance to look at yet and do you
have an opinion on the Industrial Relations blueprint
released last Friday by the Greiner government?
-11-
PM: No, it probably doesn't come as any surprise to you
Paul that in the massive material that I have to read that
decisions of the Greiner government don't come very high on
the list and it hasn't quite got onto the agenda yet.
JOURNALIST: Do you accept that the self government system
that your Government has put in place in Canberra has now
become a joke?
PM: The which?
JOURNALIST: The self government system here. Do you accept
it's now a joke. Is there anything that can be done about
it?
PM: I don't accept that it's a joke. I must say it's
becoming rather difficult to foretell the outcome of the
electoral processes.
JOURNALIST: Will you do anything about it?
PM: No, I don't think that point's been reached. Let's
wait until you get the outcome of the vote and the
discussions between the parties and non-parties. going
to happen.
JOURNALIST: On another parliamentary question Prime
Minister, how soon can the television audiences of Australia
expect to see what you say in Parliament as well as hear?
PM: I don't know the answer to that question. I haven't
got anything before me at the moment, any proposals before
me on this issue. Just expressing a personal view and
that's all I'm doing, not a Government view
JOURNALIST: Would you like us to give you a proposal?
PM: I'm not quite sure what Cabinet Laurie but I'd be
more than happy to receive one but I'm expressing a
personal view. I think it would make sense for it to be
televised but not imposed. If people want to watch us in
action, and I think there are probably a lot of people who
would like to, then that's a decision which stations ought
to be free to take. This is purely a personal view but I
don't think it's something that ought to be imposed on an
unwilling public.
JOURNALIST: What do you think of yesterday's Senate
Education report that most Australians don't know how this
place works, and does it matter so long as they're kept in
touch with the issues?
-12-
PM': That doesn't distinguish them from some people who are
here all the time. I mean when I read some of the things
that some of you reporters say about what has happened,
which hasn't happened, what hope is there? The answer to
your question is it's disappointing but I have no doubt that
you've seen material in regard to the United States, the
lack of knowledge in the United States about their
governmental processes, the institutions, even names of
presidents and senior positions like this. It just does
seem to be a feature of political life in most countries
that the people don't attach the same importance to us as we
attach to ourselves.
JOURNALIST: Just getting back to the Speaker Mr Hawke, when
you said the Government has made some mistakes in the
Parliament over the last six years, has Mrs Child also made
some mistakes and have you and other members of the
Government ever had any doubts about her ability to handle
the position?
PM: Mrs Child would admit she's made some mistakes. I
suppose she would be upset that on a particular occasion she
hasn't readily identified a member and his constituency, his
or her constituency. I don't think that that's something to
get terribly excited about but she may regard it as a
mistake. No, in regard to Mrs Child I've regarded her as a
good Speaker.
JOURNALIST: Do you think there's a case to follow the
British system where the Speaker is removed from a political
role and doesn't need to belong to the party or go to Caucus
meetings or whatever to politically neutralise the role?
PM: It sounds good, easier to do in a House of Commons of
the best part of 600 members. Not so easy to do in
Australia I would think. Conceptually it sounds attractive
but I doubt given the relatively much smaller size of our
House of Representatives that parties would be able to come
to an accommodation on it.
JOURNALIST: Was it premature to disallow Japanese
involvement in the Woolloomooloo Bay redevelopment project?
PM: There wasn't a disallowance of Japanese investment as
such. It was a disallowance made on environmental grounds.
I'm glad you asked that question because it gives me the
opportunity of affirming once again my own and the
Government's very strong position. We will not be party to
any discrimination in investment on grounds of race or of
nation and it wasn't the case in the particular project to
which you refer. It was a decision on environmental
grounds. ends