PM Transcripts

TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, 12 JUNE
1990 E 0 E PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what do you think of Mr
Maxwell's attempt to buy into The West Australian?
PM: Don't think it will be successful.
JOURNALIST: Why not?
PM: Because it we've given an indication quite
clearly in the past of our attitude on these matters.
I'll obviously want to have a yarn with Paul about it,
but we've been at one on our thinking on this issue.
We've reflected it in regard to The Age previously and I
wouldn't see that there'd be any reason to change that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the question of the
Cambodians in the Northern Territory, the Roman Catholic
church there is making representations to the Government
suggesting on the grounds of legality, practicality and
humanity they ought to be able to stay. What sort of
response can you
PM: Well, as I've made clear from the very beginning,
those processes that deal with these matters are under
way. That is the DORS, the Determination of Refugee
Status, they are being followed through in respect of
these people and it's right, as it should be, and I made
it quite clear at all times that that is the case. What
I am concerned to establish for everyone to understand,
and let there be no doubt about this, that Australia is
not going to have some completely open door where people
can expect they make up their mind that they will
determine Australia's immigration policy simply by coming
here. That's not the way it's going to happen under this
Government. No government, I believe, in the world has
got a better record of compassion and constructive
concern for refugees than has my Government. We've taken
on a per capita basis, and I extend credit to our
predecessor Government on this as well, on a per capita
basis, we've taken more refugees than any other country
in the world. Particularly that's true in regard to
refugees from Indo China and under my leadership we'll
continue to show compassion, but compassion
constructive and orderly compassion is not the same

2
thing as saying here is an open door for anyone who wants
to come. This is, the compassion is concerned with
genuine refugees, there are others who've made their mind
up that they don't particularly like the environment in
which they live for economic reasons and are prepared to
pay, as seems to be the case, a reasonable amount of
money to people who are organising these departures. Now
I'm simply making it clear, I believe, on behalf not only
of the Government but of the people of Australia, that we
are a sovereign independent nation which will determine
its immigration policy and the categories of its
immigration policy autonomously. We will not have these
things taken out of our hands. Now for those that have
arrived then, of course, the processes of the
Determination of Refugee Status will go ahead, but I'm
making it quite clear what the attitude of the Government
is to this, to this situation people thinking they can
just pay whatever they like, take whatever risk they like
and come here and think that they are just going to
automatically be accepted in this country. That's not
the way it's going to work.
JOURNALIST: process working for these people
returning to Cambodia?
PM: Well, of course, this is precisely what we've got
people in Cambodia now. We've got, as you know, a group
of people there who are talking with the Government of
Cambodia precisely about that, Geoff. I mean, we, as I
say, are in a very strong position in conducting these
discussions because of the reputation, the factual
reputation, that we have for compassion in regard to
genuine refugees. So we speak from a position of
strength. But we will want to be having discussions with
the Cambodian authorities to ensure that as much is done
as is possible to prevent the departure of these people
on the expectation that they are going to be able just be
given unqualified entry into this country.
JOURNALIST: How many boat people have been returned in
the past from Australia to various countries?
PM: I don't know the answer to that question, but what
I'Im concerned about is that we have now, over a period of
time, something like 200 odd of these people from
Cambodia have arrived in what essentially appear to be,
as I understand it, about three different boat loads.
Now it's quite necessary from a point of view of this
country that the Prime Minister and the Government make
it quite clear that there's not going to be some passive
position as far as this country is concerned on this
issue. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what is Australia's
assessment of the return of Po1 Pot? I mean, this is a
fear that some of these, people have expressed. How does
our Government view that as a

PM: No, our policy has been very, very clear on this and
we are at one with virtually all the countries of the
region and around the world, who have been involved in
the processes of trying to find a resolution to this
continuing tragedy of Cambodia. There has been the view
taken that the Khmer Rouge is a part of the realities on
the ground, if you could put it that way, in Cambodia and
all countries, including for instance the United States,
have recognised that there has been a, a part for those
people to play in the processes of discussion. And
indeed, in the Australian plan that we have over recent
months advanced, we have had discussions as you know,
as a matter of public record had discussions with
representatives of the Khmer Rouge as well, but we are at
one with other nations in ensuring that out of these
processes that are being followed and the various
strands that are being followed, that there be no
situation in which the Khmer Rouge is allowed to take
over Cambodia again. There's been very considerable
advance in the last 12 months or more in the activities
of various groups and individual nations to try and get a
resolution of the situation in Cambodia and it would be
true to say that we are further advanced now than we were
a couple of years ago. There are still sticking points,
but there is a commonality of position that whatever, in
the end, is adopted has got to be one which ensures that
there will be the opportunity for the free expression of
the will of the Cambodian people. And we are all
confident, those who know anything about the situation,
have had anything to do with it, that in those
circumstances where the people of Cambodia are provided
with the opportunity of expressing their wishes, then the
Khmer Rouge will not be in a position where they'll be
able to exercise power in that unfortunate country.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you happy with the way
the short term English language courses in Australia were
monitored as they developed? And what do you make of the
fact that a high percentage of the Chinese students, by
the time of the massacre of Beijing, had overstayed their
visas? You talk of queue jumping in the context of the
Cambodians, isn't that another form of it?
PM: Well, this is not something new. We've recognised
that, that there were unfortunate features about that and
that, of course, has been reflected in decisions that the
Government has taken to tighten up these matters and
particularly it involved the Chinese and you know the
reactions that there were in China about the tightening
up that we've undertaken. We recognise, as I say, that
there were problems in that and the decisions that we've
taken are directed towards trying to ensure that we don't
get a repetition of that in the future.
JOURNALIST: Why is it that the DORS Committee process,
or a process like that, couldn't have been applied to
those students. Was it simply that it was too big a
task?

PM: Well, you've got, you've got some 20,000 Chinese
here who come into that pre-Tienanmen Square category.
Now the decision that will be taken, I believe, by the
Government which I've indicated will make the distinction
between the period of approximately the 20th of June,
before and after. Now in regard to the period before,
with some 20,000 people there, it, quite apart from the,
the humanitarian consideration which has led us to the
position that I have annunciated, you would also have in
that. situation, mechanical problems of dealing with such
a very large number. I understand that the rate of
processing through the DORS Committee is of the order of
about 40 a month, so you have a, a mechanical problem
there. Of course, in regard to the post-Tienanmen Square
group, I have made it quite clear that the assumption
there, the assumption there will be that those people
will return to China.
JOURNALIST: But is it not the case that some of those
people would be
PM: And I, and I, look, I don't quite understand why
it's difficult for people to hear, listen and understand
what I've said on this. I've said now on three separate
occasions, that in respect of the post-Tienanmen Square
people, as indeed for anyone in this country, whether
they are post-Tienanmen Square Chinese or others, the
DORS processes are available and they will be available
to those people. I've said that three times.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Department of
Immigration says that there are at least 60,000 illegal
overstayers in Australia. We're also told concerned
that they didn't have sufficient resources to tackle this
problem. Do you think that they need more resources?
PM: Well, that's, that's undoubtedly a question which
the, which the Minister will be putting before us in the
Cabinet. That's a matter which will have to be decided,
considered and decided.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, have we had any indication from
the Cambodian Government whether they're prepared to take
these boat people back?
PM: Well, what I've seen so far and I haven't had the
opportunity of talking, obviously, with the Foreign
Minister yet, that's something I'll do as soon as it is
possible. But I've seen the public observations that
they are willing to accept these people if they return
voluntarily, but not if, not to accept them if they don't
want to come back. But these are exactly the sorts of
issues which must be talked about between us and the
authorities of Cambodia and that's precisely what's
happening.

JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said you don't know the
numbers who've been returned before, but what has been
the process in dealing with boat people before who
haven't been given refugee status?
PM: Well if the, if the DORS Committee determines that
they don't satisfy the requirements and are therefore
eligible for staying in this country as refugees, then
they will be returned.
JOURNALIST: But they have been returned in the past?
PM: Well, I'm not sure about the, you're talking about
the people from Cambodia, I don't know whether in respect
of the DORS Committee that where they have made a
decision if they've made a decision, that they don't
satisfy the category, whether as yet any have been
returned. But
JOURNALIST: I'm talking about the Vietnamese people and
other boat people in the past, not this particular group.
PM: Yes, well, as I would understand, where they don't
meet the requirements, then we, we move to return them.
But of course in regard to Vietnam, you know that we've
had to be part, and properly part, of an international
consideration of this matter. A meeting was held in
Geneva last year in June and the comprehensive action
plan was adopted there and we are part of the, the
international attempt to deal now with this situation
which is requiring an agreement on the part of, of
Vietnam that they should accept the orderly return of
people who've not been accepted, most particularly in
Hong Kong, but not exclusively there and we've been an
important part of the process of drawing up that common
action plan. Now as to whether, out of Australia, we've
had the return from people to Vietnam who have been
through the DORS process, I can't say.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, is there any prospect that we
would review our attitude to the Hun Sen regime as part
of this process of..
PM:. No, I don't think there's any question of reviewing
our attitude towards the Hun Sen regime. We have, as
I've said, Geoff, over the last couple of years, as we've
played, as I think you'll appreciate, a fairly
significant role in consideration of how best to resolve
the, the tragedy of Cambodia. We've had communications,
consultations, discussions with the regime, with Hun Sen
directly, our representatives have met with him, our
Ministers have met with him, Mr Costello has met with him
and we'll continue to do that on the basis that the Hun
Sen regime does not represent, as it stands, what will be
the final outcome of these processes. What we want to
see is the establishment of a process in which there can
be free and fair and internationally supervised elections
which will determine what will be the ultimate government

of that country. But until that occurs we'll have
whatever intercourse with that government is necessary,
both in the context of discussing these people, the boat
people and also in terms of discussing the, the question
of trying to get a resolution of the Cambodian problem.
JOURNALIST: Just back on the Chinese
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: Just back on the Chinese students
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Have you got any thoughts as to how long
they should be allowed to stay in Australia, whether
PM: Well, I have, I have indeed got ideas about that and
I've discussed it with Mr Hand, but those details will be
contained in the submission which Mr Hand is bringing to
the Cabinet. But I've got a very clear idea and so has
he as to the sort of period that we would, we would
determine, that they should-stay. I mean, without, I
won't go to that period. I know exactly what it is and
what Mr Hand will be recommending following the
discussions that I've had with him, but conceptually I
can go to it in this sense. You are going to have to
have some period of time which you believe will make you
feel that at the end of that time, one should be able to
make a judgement about the situation in China. What's
the sort of situation to which these people would be
likely to be returning and that, by definition, is not
something which is just six months away but you are not
going to make it ten years.
JOURNALIST: Li Peng
PM: Li Peng, yes?
JOURNALIST: Li Peng late last week
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: was saying some very conciliatory things
about the students and saying they would be welcomed
back. How seriously do you take that?
PM: Well, I have observed the comments that have been
made by Li Peng. We are, of course, as you would be
aware, in possession of a whole range of information
about practices and attitudes in China and all those
things have to be taken into account. I mean, just one
statement by the Premier doesn't constitute the totality'
of the considerations which would determine our position.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, as you move towards deciding
how long the students can stay, where there's a question
of family reunion..

7
PM: Well, that's one of the considerations which the
Minister will be addressing in his submission and I, I
don't want to go any further into that detail. It's
obviously a relevant question which will be part of the
submission.
JOURNALIST: When do you expect Cabinet to discuss these
things? PM: Relatively near future. I had my discussion with
the Minister now over a week ago and he's gone off to
prepare his submission and so it will be relatively
near future.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, can we take it from your remarks
that you are ruling out permanent residency being given?
PM: Am I ruling out?
JOURNALIST: We can take it from your earlier comments
that you are ruling out permanent residency being granted
to the students?
PM: The concept will be, Michelle, as I say, I've used
the phrase quite deliberately, separate category for
these people which will take account of the facts of
what's happened in China and one will have to determine
what one thinks is an appropriate period which they can
stay and with the assumption, in regard to those people,
that, that they will want to stay and would be entitled
to, but you are going to have to have a period of time in
which it's appropriate for them and for us to make a
judgement. I mean, what you've got to understand in this
is that we shouldn't be assuming that of all these
20,000, they'll all want to st3y. I mean, one would
assume that for very, very many of them, if China were to
return to some sort of normalcy, whatever word you want
to use, that they would want to return to China. So the,
the intelligent thing to do is to say in regard to these
people, well alright we understand your position, we've
got to set a period of time which you can stay and by the
end of which time it is reasonable to expect that you and
we will be able to make a judgement.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, can I get absolutely crystal
clear this question of the boat people. Has Australia
sent any boat people back to where they came from?
PM: Not of the, as I understand it, there have been
three boat loads and there have been, there has been no
return of those people, as I understand it. Now what we
are saying is that, making it quite clear, that if the
DORS Committee in respect of these people makes a
decision that they don't satisfy the criteria, then it
will be our wish that they go back to the point from
which they came.

JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I mean, I simply haven't kept up there may have
been some. I don't think any have gone back at this
stage. JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, to what extent is a resolution in
Cambodia necessary in resolving the problem as far as
Vietnamese and Cambodian boat people and has that been a
factor in Senator Evans' taking the issue up as strongly
as he has?
PM: No, no, no. Our concern with the situation in
Cambodia goes back to our first day of Government. It
was unrelated to any question of boat people from
Cambodia to here we'd had this continuing tragedy in
Cambodia and one of the first things I did as Prime
Minister was to call my then Foreign Minister in, Bill
Hayden, and to say we should take some role in Indc China
W in trying to do what we can, given the nature of the
relationships that we enjoy with China, with the United
States and with the ASEAN countries, that I took the view
from day one that we had, because of those range of
relationships, the capacity to play some role without
overstating it and we did from day one. It was quite
independent of any question of boat people because there
has been continuing tragedy in Indo China generally-
Vietnam and Cambodia in particular. And so Australia has
been very much at the forefront both in bilateral
discussions, regional discussions, global discussions and
within the United Nations in trying to play a
constructive role to get a resolution of this matter.
It's been quite independent of any consideration of boat
people. JOURNALIST: Mr Keating said last night in London
that beyond 25 percent represented a controlling
interest, will Cabinet be considering lifting the foreign
ownership limits on newspapers from 15 percent up to
around about the 25 percent limit or perhaps in line,
percent limit on TV?
PM: Well, I haven't, I haven't directed any attention to
such a proposition, but if the, the Minister directly
concerned in the Communications area or Mr Keating want
to raise that matter, well, it's appropriate to be raised
but there's nothing on the table at the moment.
JOURNALIST: What of Rupert Murdoch, isn't there a
contradiction PM: Well, he, he was in a situation where he started of f
as an Aussie and then changed his position..
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's going to happen to
the students you've got two categories of Chinese
students, one automatically will get some sort of period
which you'l11 determine, but those who came afterwards, on

what basis will the DORS Committee consider them? On the
basis of some sort of temporary refuge in Australia..
PM: No, the, the assumption in regard to those people
is, as I've said on, I don't know how many occasions now,
this will be at least the fourth, fifth. The assumption
in regard to those who've come post June the 20th is that
they will return to China. That's the assumption. Now
I've said and it is getting rather boring to
understand simple things is a bit surprising. Those
people, nevertheless, have the right to apply to the DORS
Committee process. If they choose to do tha t, then
they'll be considered.
JOURNALIST: will they be allowed to stay for that
period PM: No, no, no. Look it I hope I'm not sounding, you
know, beyond patience, but it is basically an
extraordinarily simple proposition which I'll repeat for
you. For those who came before the 20th, the Cabinet
will be making a decision that there will be a period of
time that they will stay. Right? That's not
complicated. There will be no such provision for those
after that period and if they apply under the DORS
process, then while they are being considered under the
DORS process, they stay. I mean, you don't have them
being considered by the DORS Committee and kick them out
while they are being considered. They will have, if they
choose to make the application, they will have the rights
of remaining here while they are so considered. But with
no, no period of time for them, saying for that period
you are here without question.
JOURNALIST: But on a completely different basis had
they been there two days or three days before?
PM: But you've got to make the assumption, and this
is the whole essence of distinction, you've got to make
the assumption that those who came here after the events
of Tienanmen Square came here with certain knowledge.
You've got to make a different assumption about them,
than you do about those who were here before. I mean,
no-one's questioned that, either here or anywhere else.
JOURNALIST: So they must prove they're refugees, these
later ones-
PM: The ones who are here after the 20th have no
assumption in their favour. The assumption in regard to
them is that they will return.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister they also have a right though
I understand to apply, if they don't apply as refugees,
to apply for grant of residence on humanitarian grounds.
Now currently under your new migration regulations, there
loophole in thim, no applications are being processed
on humanitarian grounds, because of the regulations. Can

you say what the Government is going to do about that,
and whether you believe that is partly responsible for
the huge backlog in immigration at the moment?
PM: I don't believe it's responsible for the huge
backlog, but all I can say is that any rights that people
have under the existing law will remain. We've not
JOURNALIST: But under the new regulations nobody
qualifies for grant of residence on humanitarian grounds.
PM: Well if the new regulations have that impact then
that's what the case is. I am not engaged, and the
Cabinet will not be engaged, in changing anything other
than in terms that I have indicated. That is to indicate
in regard to Chinese who have come before Tienanmen
Square. I'm not going to go over it again. We'll be
doing that. We won't be making any other changes.
JOURNALIST: Well Mr Hawke. Two questions. Why are the
Cambodians in the Northern Territory being held virtually
incommunicado and will they be given the sort of help
that they will need to make an application to the DORS
Committee? Social work help, translators you can
imagine someone coming out of Cambodia might not have in
his head a full knowledge of the Australian refugee
procedures. PM: They will get the normal assistance that is
available to anyone who takes who seeks to take
advantage of the DORS procedures.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, will they get social service, in
terms of interpreters and why are they being held
incommunicado at the moment?
PM: Well you use the phrase incommunicado. I mean these
people have arrived here other than in accordance with
the legal immigration procedures and they are therefore
not here legally. They are accommodated, dealt with
according to the normal procedures, which make available
to them the opportunity of putting their case to DORS.
Now obviously there are certain facilities made available
to them in terms of interpreters, language and so on and
an indication of what their rights are. That has been
going on for many years and the same facilities are being
applied to these people. And will be applied. We are
not seeking to change the law in regard to those people.
What I'm seeking to do is to make clear to people who are
in that country, now in Cambodia and who may be
contemplating coming here, that they need not think that
here is a country which is going to abandon its sovereign
right to determine the level of its immigration intake.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible) Mr Willis any, or given him
any indication that he could have an overseas posting
with the Government and has he given any indication that

he might accept it? or do you expect him to stay the
full term?
PM: I don't go to any question of don't read too much
into this but I don't go to publicly to discussions
I have with any of my Ministers about their futures.
Whether in regard to the tenure of the portfolio they
have got, possible changes to another, or possible
departure from Government. If I have such discussions
with my Ministers they are, as far as I'm concerned,
entirely personal and confidential.
JOURNALIST: Do you expect to reshuffle, to have to
reshuffle your Cabinet in the next eighteen months?
PM: No. We've just won an election. We've just had a
very significant reshuffle. I haven't directed my mind
to the question of reshuffle. I think we have a superbly
equipped Ministry as a matter of fact, whoare doing their
job really well. My mind is not on reshuffling at all.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, was Senator Richardson wrong when
he apparently tells anybody who will listen that Ralph
Willis will be gone by the end of the year and he will be
offered the Finance portfolio?
PM: No, I don't know. I mean if you assert Geoff and
I know that you are assiduous in trying to follow up
these things. Sometimes factually and sometimes with a
fervent imagination. But if he's saying that, I accept
you word for it. I'm not saying it.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, Senator Richardson said yesterday
that the Party should look at falling membership and also
said that some Ministers weren't spending enough time
talking to the grass roots. Are you aware of this
problem and what steps do you think should be taken to
overcome this.
PM: I don't think it's a great problem. I think Graham
is absolutely right in sounding out the warning that all
of us, myself included, should as far as it's consistent
with the discharge of our Ministerial duties, spend as
much time as we can, with the grass roots. I think
that's a very sensible suggestion to be making. But how
far it's a problem I haven't come to any conclusion about
that. But I think it's a very sensible thing to be
telling all Ministers, spend as much time as you can with
the rank and file.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible) with the grass roots. Will
you be at the Victorian Conference next weekend?
PM: No, I wouldn't think so.
JOURNALIST: Why is that?
PM: Because I don't usually go.

JOURNALIST: It's a pretty important Conference and
you've just been to the New South Wales one.
PM: I have just been to the* New South Wales one. Yes.
But I've been Prime Minister now for seven odd years. I
think I'm not sure Michelle how many times I've been
to the Victorian Conference in that period, but I don't
think it's more than a couple at the most. I can
remember going once.
JOURNALIST: Why don't you then?
PM: Well, why don't I go to a whole lot of other ones?
I mean I've got plenty of things to do and
JOURNALIST: It is your home State.
S ePMxa: lteIdt ips osmityi ohnom, e I Swtaatsen. ' t aB urte gevuelanr baefttoerne deI r waast tihn ethis
Conference in Victoria. If they feel they would like me
to be there and I f elt that I want to go, well then that
would be arranged. I haven't felt any compulsion to be
there next weekend. None at all.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke the Privacy Commissioner has
revealed that an enormous amount of information, held by
your Departments, on people who make FOI requests, people
who, public servants and people write to you. That
includes tax f ile numbers, debts, political
police.... Why is that a new concerned? Should the
Government look at that?
PM: I read the report, particularly a headline report in
the Sydney Morning Herald. I'll get a report on that
just to find out whether in fact there is anything to be
concerned about. I didn't listen to it, but I'm informed
that the P * rivacy Commissioner, this morning seemed to
play down very considerably, the import of what was in
the paper. But I don't tkae these things lightly. I
mean I understand, as I think anyone should, that it is
inevitable that in our society that the range of
departments that we have, Social Security, Taxation and
so on, there are going to be millions of reports and
files and the right approach for Government is to ensure
that there is the balance, the proper balance between
having the information that is necessary to provide the
services of Government on the one hand, but on the other
to ensure the appropriate levels of privacy, so that
people's personal affairs are not made available to
people or to an extent, that is not necessary to ensure
the discharge of that obligation of Government of
providing a service. Now we shouldn't be surprise that
there are millions of files. That's' inevitable. But
I'Ill ask for a report to reassure myself that there is no
breach of the requirements of privacy. If I get any
indication from that report that there is cause for
concern, then I'll initiate action.

JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the economy, will it be your
objective in the coming Budget discussions, to ensure
that the Government spending is restrained to the extent
that there is no increase real increase in outlays in
1990-91?
PM: We've had four years, as you know, in a row Geoff of
real reductions in outlays. We'll make the decisions
which we think are appropriate for the Budget of 1990-91.
We will be engaged, without any question in this period
as I've said just in the last few days, in looking for
areas of reductions in expenditure. Just what the
balance will be I'm not quite sure. But there certainly
will be reductions. That will be done because it's
necessary from our own point of view. And it's also
necessary if we are going to be asking the States to play
their part. Now just what those figures will be is a
matter that will come out of the processes of ERC which
unfortunately start next week.
JOURNALIST: Was Mr Clark out of line when he says
billion the cuts?
PM: Is Mr Clark out of line? When has he ever been line
with the Government?
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke has ERC determined any broad target
for these spending cuts as yet?
PM: There have been some considerations, some of I
think target might be overstating it but there are some
ball park figures that have been thrown around.
JOURNALIST: Is $ 1.6 billion in the ball park?
PM: Good try. Good try.
JOURNALIST: Do you expect to cut, squeeze the States in
real terms at the Premiers' Conference?
PM: Another good try boy. Good try. We'll be expecting
the States to play a part in restraint. Now just what
that figure will be is precisely what we've got to direct
our attention to in the weeks ahead. But it's quite
clear that the States haven't exercised in the last few
years the same level of restraint as there has been at
the level of the Commonwealth and they are going to be
required to exercise restraint in this period ahead of
US. JOURNALIST: Are you at all sympathetic to the arguments
of the States that if you want them to speed up the
process of micro reform, or in some cases, launch that
process, then you oughtn't to be as tough with them
financially?

PM: Yes, but that is a rather simplistic way of putting
it. If I were a Premier of a State with a Premiers'
Conference coming up on the 28th of this month, where I'd
heard the Federal Government talking about the need for
restraint, and I'd also heard that same Government
talking about the need for co-operation from the States
to pursue micro economic reform, I guess that I would try
and meld those two things and come along and say now
don't be too tough on me if you want me to play my part
in micro economic reform. I suppose that's human nature.
But the facts are that the Premiers have got to
understand that at this Conference on the 28th of this
month, that we are going to have a macro economic task in
front of us which is consistent with the sort of things
that we've had to do over the last seven years. We've
got to get the macro economic settings right. And we
will do that and we won't really be terribly responsive
to a proposition which if it was put as crudely as this,
well don't hit us too hard, because if you do we won't
co-operate in the micro economic area. Now, and I would
trust that the Premiers wouldn't be so crass as to put
the proposition in those terms. Now, that is a different
proposition however from specific areas of micro economic
reform, where it may be abeled to be argued that if
you're going to give effect to a particular reform, that
some sort of assistance may be required. Now that's a
quite different proposition and what is quite clear is
that I will be raising at this Premiers' Conference the
need for co-operation in the area of micro economic
reform. I'll expect to get that co-operation and I think
the Premiers will be entitled to expect that we will take
a sensible and rational approach to that issue. We will.
But if there's some attempt just to have this simple
proposition, don't be too hard on us. If you are we
won't be too co-operative. There won't be any mileage in
that one for them.
JOURNALIST: Would it be reflected also in your own
Budget in say a change of emphasis towards infrastructure
funding away from other areas of the Budget, given the
importance of infrastructure funding to some of the more
critical areas of microeconomic reform rail, road, the
waterfront etc?
PM: Well we'll, as we have in the past, we'll make those
decisions in regard to funding which we believe Take
the area of roads. Let's just look at that. In a period
of very very considerable financiel restraint on the part
of the Commonwealth where there've been these, as I say,
four successive years of real reductions in outlays,
we've nevertheless in the area of roads in our general
decisions and then in the last 12 months in two separate
specific decisions made more funding available for roads.
So we will make the decisions in regard to infrastructure
funding which are necessary to give effect to the sorts
of decisions that we think are necessary to get the
competitive structure of this economy into place.

JOURNALIST: Will that be at the cost of the transfer
system etc?
PM: When you say at the cost of, I mean, in the end when
a government has drawn up its Budget and there is this
amount of money available for the transfer system, there
is this amount of money available for roads, there is
this amount of money available for defence, then by
definition there has been a series of judgements which
have said well we think the priority we have there
requires that amount of money. Now you have not got
unlimited resources so it means that you have been able
to do less elsewhere in terms of matching that priority.
I mean that's the nature of government, that's the
toughness of government in one way. I mean you've got a
position where so many of the areas of government, of
outlays and expenditures, can put a good case for more,
just looked at alone. Very easy. I mean this is really
what we go through in the Expenditure Review Committee
year after year. Every Minister's able to basically put
a very very good case for more. He can say look if you
give me more, he will be this positive response and that
outcome and benefit. But in the end it's the aggregates
and the inter-relationship of the aggregates which
determine the health of the economy. So your Minister
can say look I'll have a very healthy little situation
here if you give me another hundred million, but if you
give that one a hundred million, and this one a hundred
million and this one half a billion and so on, while he
might think he's getting a healthy outcome in respect of
the proposal that he puts to you and he probably would
be, looked at alone if you don't look at the aggregate
outcome you won't have a healthy economy as a whole..
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, at the Premiers' Conference on the
28th, how much work will you actually be able to do on
microeconomic reform? You've just mentioned specifics of
particular areas
PM: I think what I want to be doing at the Premiers'
Conference on this issue is to really say these things.
We must realise that the sort of microeconomic reform
that we need in this country is not going to come simply
from decisions by the Commonwealth Government alone. By
definition there is so much of it which is in your
domain, obviously while electricity, power and
generation and so on, without being exhaustive about it.
Now therefore I'll be saying what I want is a situation
of your commitment to joining with us in trying to bring
about the most effective sort of reform in these areas
thtwe possibly can. And to establish really, not then
at that meeting on the 28th a series of decisions about
each of these areas, but rather to set up firstly their
agreement of the importance of cooperation and secondly a
process to follow from the Premiers' Committee for giving
effect to that commitment. I believe that we will get a
commitment from the Premiers of the need for such
cooperation. So then, if they give that commitment and

that agreement, then to establish a process of
cooperation. Now just what will be involved in that it's
too early to say. Conceivably, and I say conceivably, it
could mean another special Premiers' Conference,
conceivably, as part of that process. Or it could mean a
series of meetings with particular Ministers in
particular areas. But that's what I see the 28th as
being about. Acceptance of the commitment, the
cooperation in the area of microeconomic reform and
agreement to a process. Because as I said the other
night, what we've got to realise in this country, and
it's terribly important that I think this, it's in our
minds as a community. You're going to have by 1992,
which is only a couple of years away, in Europe 12 states
who will have made a series of decisions about their
relationships which will mean that there will be less
obstacles, impediments to the free movement of goods and
services in Europe than there will be in Australia
between the States of Australia. Now that's not a burden
that we can intelligently continue to carry on into the
future. Now we don't have in this country a disposition
to change these things by transference in a
constitutional sense of powers between the States and the
Commonwealth. So what we've intelligently got to do is
to sit down and say well how are we going to cooperate to
make sure that we really do have one economic, national
economic unit when it comes to these issues? I believe
that the Premiers will be responsive to that.
JOURNALIST: Rather than say lumping the States together
and saying they haven't played their part, isn't it
really fairer to acknowledge that in fact some States
such as NSW have made significant steps along the path
microeconomic reform
PM: Wall it is the case, certainly Milton, that the
records of the States both in terms of general economic
policy and microeconomic reform in particular are not
uniform. I accept that and that will be acknowledged in
the discussions we have. I mean obviously it's not
appropriate for me to try and award marks out of ten to
all the States here now. It's neither appropriate nor in
the self-interest of the Government an appropriate thing
to do. But it will be reflected in the discussions.
JOURNALIST: Two Labor States in fact, WA and Victoria,
have lost a lot of money, of their taxpayers money over
recent years. Will that be a consideration that you will
take into account at the Premiers' Conference?
PM: I think it's maybe a consideration that they would
like us to take into account but I don't think they'll
get terribly far with that proposition.
JOURNALIST: Just clarifying something establishing
some sort of consensus if you like on the national goals
of this Premiers' Conference. Do you see any possibility

that specific purpose grants could be used or directed at
this round of State funding to microeconomic issues?
PM: No such decisions see being made at this
conference. We will be responsive to anything that the
States want to say to us in this area of microeconomic
reform. But I wouldn't see any decisions being made at
this conference within that framework or on those
criteria. But we really, as I say, have. just got to get
very firmly onto the agenda at this Premiers' Conference
these issues and be prepared on the part of the
Commonwealth and of the States to have everything into
the ring on this. What are the things that have got to
be done by the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that
we create the best microeconomic framework in this
country to ensure an efficient and internationally
competitive economy? That's the responsibility that
we've got irrespective of our politics, whether it's
Liberal Premiers like Nick Greiner or overwhelmingly
Labor Premiers as they are and ourselves. We've got to
put political differences aside, regional differences
a * side and say how together do we act to make this
national Australian economy as internationally
competitive and efficient as we possibly can?
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you just commenced three inquiries
by the Industry Commission in the areas applying to the
States' rail, electricity and marketing authorities.
Aren't you shortcircuiting that
PM: Of course we're not. The first thing to note is
that those three inquiries that you refer to have been
set up after consultation with and agreement from the
States. This is not something that we've imposed upon
the States. It represents the outcome of discussions and
agreements with them. Governments, Federal and State,
don't just then say we'll put everything on hold and
we'll wait until we get those reports, either the interim
or a final report. I mean you've obviously got to
address these and other issues yourself. I mean you take
the area of trying to get an integrated rail freight
system in this country. There obviously is much that can
be done in discussion between us and the States on that
issue without simply waiting for the report from the
Industry Commission.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you mentioned some of the carrots
you've offered the States in terms of speeding up the
process of micro reform. What about the stick? How
prepared is the Commonwealth to use its powers of funding
and borrowing to push the States into micro reform?
PM: Well I hope we'll get this matter resolved in a way
which involves a maximum degree of cooperation. I mean
you know that's the way I prefer to do things. Not
simply because of my nature but also because in the end
processes which reflect agreement and cooperation will
stick better than anything else. Now how in that process

you get, as you put it, the appropriate combination of
carrots and sticks is too early to say. But really what
I want to do is to get a position from the end of this
month of commitment to process. How in working out that
process, what we'll need to do and what they'll need to
do, that's exactly the guts of what the discussions into
the processes are going to have to be about.
JOURNALIST: Administrative Services Minister,
Stewart West, has suggested that NSW and Victoria
should be compensated for the infrastructure costs of
immigration. He was critical of the Government for not
having considered it before. a) Was he right that you
should have considered it before, and b) are you going to
. start doing it now?
PM: I've got really no comment to make on what Stewart
said. Stewart was a member of the Government when all
those things were being done.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: That doesn't follow. Nor the fact that I say it
doesn't follow means that something will be done. But
your proposition because of what I've just said means
that nothing will be done or something like that, that
doesn't follow.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, a week or so ago Senator Ray said
on behalf of the Foreign Minister that the Government
would be considering the implications of the attempted
PLO raid on the Israeli and also Arafat's attitude on
this. Have you had an opportunity to do anything about
this or does the Government continue, attempt to continue
directly.. PM: I understand that the Foreign Minister is having a
review of the situation. I'm given to understand that
he's doing that. No doubt at some stage he will report
to me on that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you believe that had you
waited until the Cabinet decision had been made that
there would have been less confusion and concern in the
community over the Chinese and Cambodian issue?
PM: N ot at all. I mean the confusion in the community
that you talk about, which, may I say as gently as I can
f lows very considerably from the incapacity of some of
your colleagues to understand simple propositions, is not
something which necessarily would've been any different
after the Cabinet decision. I mean the things that I've
said are very simple, straightforward and may I say
unchanged from the day I first spoke on it. I read with
a certain amount of amusement I must say about Hawke
changing his position, Hawke backing down. Absolute
bloody balderdash. Hawke hasn't changed his position one
fraction. For the simple reason that what. the Prime

19
Minister said in the first place was sensible, reflected
the requirements of this country and will be given effect
to by the Government.
JOURNALIST: Australian and Qantas need about $ 800
million. Some of your Caucus backbenchers are saying
that one possibility would be for superannuation funds to
be encouraged or perhaps an investment vehicle to provide
that sort of money. Are you attracted to that idea at
all? PM: I'm attracted to this matter being discussed within
the Party. I'm very interested to see that they are
addressing their minds to a range of possibilities. The
Government will have to make decisions about the funding
of our airlines and any thoughts that anyone has on this
matter within the Government process is welcome.
* JOURNALIST: Will that be in the Budget?
PM: I'm not quite sure whether it will be in the Budget.
We'll obviously have to address this issue in the not too
distant future.
JOURNALIST: Just given the effort that we are putting
into making sure that a peaceful settlement eventuates in
Cambodia and given-how crucial China's position is on
this, have you had any information conveyed to you that
the recent decision on Chinese students might have upset
or set back that process.
PM: No. I don't believe that the position that China
will adopt, both for itself and in terms of any influence
it may have on the Khmer Rouge, is going to be impacted
upon in any way by this decision. I mean, after all,
other countries have made similar sorts of decisions
the United States, Canada and so on. I think they'll
understand. They may like it indicated they don't
particularly like the decision we've made but
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well you've seen in the press the indication from
spokespersons for the Chinese government that they
haven't approved of the decision. That's all I'm going
on. I haven't had any letter from Li Peng. But in the
broad sweep of these sorts of issues the Chinese
government will make a decision which it thinks is in its
best interests in regard to how the situation in Cambodia
should be resolved. I can only express the hope that it
will be a decision both, as I say, in regard to their own
direct involvement but more importantly in regard to the
influence they have on the Khmer Rouge. That it will be
a decision which is supportive of what now I see as a
gathering momentum for a process of resolution. We've
moved a long way since the f irst discussions took place.
I think it was in December of ' 87 in Paris. That was
when we had sort of the first coming together of the

groups. And we're now really getting down in the
discussions which are taking place within the P5, that's
the Permanent Five, of the Security Council, and
discussions which have been taking place under the Paris
Conference procedures and in the initiatives from
Thailand and most recently reflected in the Tokyo
meeting. Now really getting down to quite concrete and
detailed issues, what for instance is the role of the
State National Council, the issue of how you can vest
some appropriate sovereignty in the State National
Council which would enable then the concept of agreement
to a United Nations, some sort of United Nations process
in the interim leading up to the election and the
oversight of the election. You're getting down to
detailed questions of how do you relate proposals about a
cease fire which now have been considered, but relating
that as they must be to an overall permanent settlement.
Now these are quite specific questions in which there
have been considerable advances made so we are, I think,
now in a position where we've got more reason to be
confident than three years ago, although still
recognising that there are very very hard decisions that
have to be made. I'm hopeful that on all the evidence
available to me that the various parties will be able to
reach a point of agreement so that all their legitimate
interests can be taken into account. There is no doubt
that in that the position of China is very important. No
doubt about that at all. But I would not expect that the
decisions that they will make on this will be affected by
the sorts of things we've been talking about here.
ends