PRIMESTRAIAITE
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH PAUL LYNEHAN, 7.30 REPORT,
27 JUNE 1990
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
LYNEHAM intro
PM: As a nation it's becoming increasingly clear that we
do have to examine, in much more detail and with much
more commitment, the nature of the Federal-State
relationship. Not with a view to the Commonwealth
scoring off the States or vice versa, but to try and
address the issue of how we best deliver services to
people and to look at how best we co-operate to create a
competitive, efficient economy.
LYNEHAM: It was an intriguing comment that passed
without any follow-up as the news conference focussed on
immigration and other issues. But later, in the Prime
Minister's office, I discussed his ideas with him in more
detail. PM: Immediately after my re-election I started to think
about well, we've now been given the great responsibility
and honour of governing this country at the start of the
final decade of this century. We're coming up to the
centenary of federation, January the first, 2001 and I am
a student of history constitutional development of
this country and I remembered and understood that it took
the decade of the 90s in the last century, the full
decade of those colonies talking to one another to work
out what was the institutional and constitutional
framework for the new Australia. It seemed to me that I
had the responsibility now to address this issue in this
last decade of this century as we come up to the
centenary to try and see how best together we can look at
what needs to be done to get Australia in the best
institutional and constitutional shape for the beginning
of that next century. So I've been talking with my
colleagues about it, some ministerial colleagues and with
people on my staff and what I'm planning to do is,
relatively soon, after the Premiers Conference is to make
a major speech which will be an attempt to launch that
process. LYNEHAM: Structural change in the relationship?
PM: Well, it will address the issues, without being
exhaustive and I mean I don't want to give the whole
2
speech now, but, but it's a sensible question and it
warrants an answer. It will address these issues, as I
say, without being exhaustive, Paul. The, the processes
that exist for the delivery of services by Commonwealth
and States and local government and the degree of
duplication and overlapping that exists, how can we look
at more efficiencies there, it will look at the question
of micro economic reform because, by definition in this
country, it's not just a matter for the Commonwealth. I
mean, what struck me as I've been thinking, the thing
that really struck me as much as anything as I started to
think about this, Paul, was that I looked at Europe, I
see what's happening there, the movement to Europe 1992
and what do I see? I see 1992, a Europe of 12 nations
which will have less inhibitions, less barriers to the
free movement of trade and services, to the effective
functioning of that great unit than will exist in this
one nation of Australia. And so I want to look at those
things, but the major concern I have is that the States
shall see this initiative of mine, not as point scoring
for the Commonwealth, there may well indeed be the
conclusion that in some areas it's best for the States to
do more.
LYNEHAM: So you're prepared to shuffle the deck of
powers not only dealing yourself the best hand, but
PM: It's not dealing, there's no question of looking at
the I mean, you know I've historically had this view
which, that talk about States' rights and someone else's
rights and federal rights, that's never appealed to me.
LYNEHAM: You've also suggested though that you think
you said once in a series of lectures you thought we
might be better of f without State Governments at all.
PM: Well that's, I mean, if you what I said then, if
you were now, that was in 1979 in the Boyer Lectures, I
said if as you move towards the end of the 20th century,
you were looking at the institutional and constitutional
framework for the Australia of today it wouldn't be the
same as it was then. But the reality is, as I accept, is
that in my lifetime and quite beyond that we have to work
within a federal framework where there's a Commonwealth
Government and States. The intelligent challenge to me,
to my Government, to the State Premiers and their
Governments, irrespective, I hope, of political
persuasions, the challenge and the responsibility for us
is to say now, let's look at the distribution of
functions not just in a constitutional sense, but the
way, institutionally, it's developed and the way in which
we have responsibilities for transport between us. Now
one of the things that we need to do cooperatively and it
may involve some financial adjustments, I accept that,
but what are the things that together we need to do to
put this country in the best possible shape as we come up
and it will be very quick, as we come up towards that
centenary of federation. It took our predecessors, as I
3
say, a decade. The last decade of the 19th century to
prepare for Australian federation. I think intelligently
and sensibly we can use this last decade of the
century to get Australia into better shape for what's
going to be a very, very tough and competitive 21st
century. LYNEHAM: Well, you can only wish him luck. Being the
Balkans of the South Pacific seems like a very
inefficient way to shape up to the next century. The
other big issue today of course is immigration
following last night's marathon Cabinet meeting Mr Hawke
announced that Chinese nationals who were here on June
last year just after the Beijing massacre will be able
to stay for four years under a special category of
temporary residence permit. After that time their
permanent residence here will depend on the political
climate in China, although ultimately none of them will
be sent home against their will. Now, isn't that a bit
contradictory not according to Bob Hawke.
PM: The first thing which goes to the question of the
four year term, Paul, is this that it would be quite
improper, it would not be a discharge of our humanitarian
responsibilities if we imposed upon these people an
obligation now to make a choice as to whether they claim
to become permanent residents of Australia and repudiate
their Chinese citizenship because, obviously, it is our
belief and on the evidence that the great majority of
these will want to go back to their homeland, but not
make a decision in that respect while the conditions in
China as they are, uncertain. So they have a four year
period now where their time in Australia is secure.
You've got your four years, you needn't commit yourself
to making a decision about cutting or anything like
that. Now it is our hope that at the end of that four
year period, that conditions in China will have improved
and I think it will be their hope so that they can go
back as it was their intention when they came here, to go
back to their country. And we're saying that if
conditions have returned to a position where it's the
judgement of the Government of the day, that the
returnees would be at no risk, then that's what should
happen. But we are saying that you just don't lightly
give this precious thing of Australian permanent
residence, which is the key to citizenship, you just
don't lightly give that and if there's no reason why they
shouldn't go back, then they go. But if a person at that
time says no, we're not going back, we're frightened.
We'll say alright you can do that but you don't then get
the grant of permanent residence which is the key to
citizenship. We'll let you stay here by rolling over
temporary extensions.
LYNEHAM: Stay here forever by rolling over temporary
extensions?
PM: Yes because it's our commitment. We've made the
commitment and it goes right back. We've made the
commitment no-one will be forced back against their
will in this group because there was this cataclysmic
event LYNEHAM: But these things are good if there's a benign
regime in China. Why do we have people then sitting here
for decades after on these rolled over temporary permits?
PM: Well, because you've got to face the situation that
some could say and you they can say well, look, I
come from a part of China, it's all very well for you to
say that generally speaking things are alright and so on,
but I say to you that as a result of people who are in a
position of influence where I come from and because of
something that happened that time, I would be at risk.
Now we are not prepared to take that risk, but we are not
going, as I say, lightly and automatically to give
permanent residence which is the key to citizenship to
this country in circumstances where we think it's not
justified. LYNEHAM: And if they do stay on under these rolled over
temporary permits
PM: Yes.
LYNEHAM: What rights would they have, would they be sort
of second class citizens?
PM: Well, they wouldn't have all the rights of permanent
citizens, but you will notice in the decision that
because there are some complications in just determining
what rights are going to go into this period of the four
year term and the Ministers still have to sort that out.
I can't give you the final answers precisely because
that's got to be determined, that'll come back to Cabinet
very, very soon. But clearly they won't attract all the
rights of full citizenship, full permanent resident.
LYNEHAM: And those who had overstayed their visas here
by the time of the massacre of Beijing
PM: Yes.
LYNEHAM: Some of them, let's face it, have fallen on
their feet haven't they?
PM: Well that can be put, but what we're I mean,
there's two things about that. In a sense, conceptually,
it's fairly difficult to distinguish between those and
those who hadn't overstayed. I mean, here this
cataclysmic event occurred in China at the beginning of
June of last year. In a sense the ramifications of that
and the implications for the people in Australia and in
terms of their reactions, didn't distinguish between
those who were overstayers and who weren't. So there's
that point of view and what the Minister is told also by
his Department that it's also administratively difficult
to sort them out. So for two reasons, I mean, the
distinction isn't made.
LYNEHAM: Of course, in four years Dr Hewson might be
Prime Minister.
PM: Well, depending whether the Liberals have continued
their process of changing leaders pretty regularly, but I
can't bind future Governments, but I would think, and I
say this in respect to the Opposition whether it's led by
Dr Hewson or not, in a hypothetical position they were in
power, I don't believe they will be, but in that
hypothetical position, I would think that they would
regard as reasonable, the balance that we've tried to
strike between our compassionate humanitarian
responsibilities to these people and also the
responsibility we have as a Government to have control of
our migration program. I think we've, I think we've
struck the balance fairly. I'm certain that Australia,
being a country which has per capita more of these people
than any other, I know from what's happened elsewhere,
we've been more generous than anyone else.
LYNEHAM: Thanks for joining us.
PM: It's been a pleasure, Paul, thank you very much.
ends
0