PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF SEPARATE INTERVIEWS WITH CHANNEL NINE AND ABC
TV, HARRY WOODS' ELECTORATE OFFICE, GRAFTON
16 AUGUST 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: There is a growing amount of concern from
overseas countries this morning that Australia and the US
should stay out of the Gulf crisis. What's your reaction to
that? PM: It is also the case that there is a growing support for
the decision of those countries to go in. As I said the
other day, and I repeat it to your viewers, there is a
paradox about this decision for me. It was the most serious
one I have had to take as Prime Minister but it was also, in
the end, a very easy one because the principles are clear.
We hope that there is no conflict, no armed conflict. But
if there is one lesson the world should learn from this
century it is this, from that disastrous decade of the
thirties. We had the unmeasurable tragedy of the Second
World War for two reasons. One was the tyranny of the Axis
powers and the evil of them. There was also the second
condition and that was the appeasers. And without the
second the first couldn't have produced the tragedy of the
Second World War. The lesson of that is burnt into my mind.
And if we believe therefore in the principle of the rights
of independent nations to be free and to be free from naked
aggression from their neighbours and it is no good just
saying that we believe that we have to be prepared even at
some risk to back up our beliefs with action.
JOURNALIST: How then do you view the criticism from Gough
Whitlam saying that perhaps your decision has been a little
bit too rash?
PM: Well Gough seems to be entering a phase now of
gratuitous advice to Government. He has been telling us
recently how to run the economy which led one of his
previous staffers to ring us up and saying having Mr Whitlam
giving advice on how to run the economy is like having Nero
giving advice about firefighting. Now it was a fair
comment, one of which he would have been proud himself I
think. Now Gough is entitled to his views but he showed as
Prime Minister that he wasn't, let me say, incapable of
error at times. I respect Gough Whitlam. but on this issue I
think he is wrong. The important thing is this, that we
have made a decision now which involves a limited role for
our ships. It involves four functions as it has been spelt
out identification, contact, interrogation and warning to
any ships and not at this stage the question of
interdiction. Now we have got some 18 or 19 days before the
ships are actually in the zone. There will be a lot of
discussion and consultation between now and then and
hopefully before then the matter will be resolved. That's
my greatest hope that Saddam Hussein will see the stupidity
of his decision and that the best interests of the Iraqi
people are served by withdrawing. That's the best outcome.
But if he hasn't done that then we've made it clear as a
Cabinet that if there are changed circumstances between now
and then which would require some enhanced role for the most
effective presence of our forces then we would consider that
as a Cabinet and make the decision if necessary. The role
that we have decided on is one which the United States
understands and regards as the valuable contribution I
believe it is.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister as you know a couple of
political commentators have criticised the haste with which
you committed the ships to the Gulf. What's your immediate
reaction to that?
PM: Well it wasn't hasty. I mean there is a perception in
some quarters that I got a ring from George Bush on the
Friday morning and made my decision on the basis of that
call. Of course this is a totally erroneous perception.
This matter had been raised much earlier in the week in
Washington. There had been serious discussion there then
discussion by me with Ministers and others and it was a very
considered decision. There was no ill haste in it. I've
said that it was a paradox in the sense it is the most
serious decision that I have had to take as Prime Minister
but, in the end, it was a relatively easy decision because
the principles were clear.
JOURNALIST: It has been said that part of the criticism has
come about because the ground rules even for confrontation
weren't even laid down before the ships were committed.
PM: Well this again is an ill-thought through analysis and
objection. Let me say why I have that view and I am not
objecting to criticism but at least when it's made people
should understand the inadequacy of their analysis. We have
a situation where it takes from the time the ships left
Sydney about 22 days to get to the Gulf region. We made it
clear in our discussions with the Americans that there were
matters of detail and important matters of detail that had
to be decided and they understand that. We've got plenty of
time to do that. The Navy understands that and are involved
deeply in the discussions obviously. And by the time our
vessels arrive there their role and their relationship with
others will be established crystal clearly. What we've made
clear at this time out of discussions with the Americans
that the role initially will be seen as what we have
identified as four things that's identification, this is
in regard to shipping in the region, identification,
contact, interrogation and warning and not at this stage
interdiction. But the Cabinet made it clear that if in the
processes of consultation that are going on now before the
ships get there, if it becomes clear that some enlarged role
would be appropriate then the Cabinet would consider that.
JOURNALIST: So our men won't be boarding ships?
PM: Well at this stage no. And that is understood by the
United States and is regarded, the role that I am talking
about is regarded by the United States as a very useful
role. When I refer to the United States it is not well you
tell us what to do and that will be OK but the facts are
that they are the major naval force and will be the major
naval force in the area and obviously it's sensible you talk
with them. And they regard that role as important. But I
repeat, if it's appropriate for more to be done then Cabinet
will consider that.
JOURNALIST: Cabinet ratified the decision though one
commentator who I am sure you have read has criticised the
fact that Cabinet didn't make the decision.
PM: Well let me make it clear that I consulted the members
of the Security Committee, that is all, Neal Blewett was
overseas so I couldn't contact him, but all the Ministers
that I contacted were members of the Security Committee.
That Security Committee doesn't usurp Cabinet but what I am
saying is that that Security Committee has to take a range
of decisions that are very very significant for this
country. I had no doubt what the sense of Cabinet was
because you will recall that earlier we had had discussion
about sanctions. I had no doubt at all what the sense of
Cabinet was and the fact that I had no doubt about the sense
of Cabinet was reflected that when we did go to Cabinet this
week there was endorsement of what I did.
JOURNALIST: Is your preferred option for our men to be
under UN control?
PM: Yes we have made it clear and indeed let it be
understood the United States has said they would prefer a
situation where there was the blue cover of the United
Nations. But let me make this important point that my
reading of the situation and perhaps more importantly than
that the advice of our relevant departments is that we have
legal sanction, legal cover for what we are doing through
the combination of the provisions of Section 51 of the UN
Charter together with the letter that I had from the Emir of
Kuwait. JOURNALIST: Do we push on regardless of getting that UN
protection? PM: Well we do two things. What we'll be doing is to be
part of a series of processes which will try and get a UN
decision because from every point of view it would be
desirable if you could have that as well. But yes we will
go on because there is legal sanction for what we are doing.
I mean history shows you that you don't hang around and
condone aggression by inaction. Kuwait today, Saudi Arabia
tomorrow. Who next? And if the thirties tell us anything
they tell us the disastrous nature of that concept.
JOURNALIST: Does it annoy you that Gough Whitlam has become
involved again as he has done over the last couple of months
in other issues?
PM: Doesn't annoy me. It seems reasonably difficult for
ex-prime ministers to retire gracefully. The pre-eminent
exponent of that, of course, was Robert Menzies. Once he
went out he left it to others. But Gough, as I have just
said recently, seems to be entering a phase of gratuitous
advice on a range of subjects. No I don't object to that.
I simply, I got a little bit of amusement out of one of his
former staffers ringing in when he was giving us the
economic advice the other day and that former member of his
staff said to have Gough Whitlam giving a government advice
on how to run the economy is like asking Nero for advice on
firefighting techniques.
JOURNALIST: On the economy the Coalition yesterday adopted
consumption tax as policy. What's your reaction to that?
PM: Well the reaction is in two parts. I was fascinated by
the reports of their meeting and the deep divisions within
the conservative parties on this issue, the reported remark
of Wilson Tuckey that this was an act of collective
political suicide. So there is great and deep division
within the conservative parties as well there might be.
which leads me to the second point. There was an argument
earlier in the 80s when we looked at it but we have so
transformed and widened the tax base noiv that the very
obvious disadvantages far outweigh any perceived advantages.
JOURNALIST: Is Mr Tuckey right, is it political suicide?
Can a political party in Australia win an election promising
a new tax?
PM: You need to make this point in regard to that question,
no election is ever decided in my judgement on one issue.
This one issue won't be the single issue that the electors
of the next election will have in their mind as to who
should govern them next. But I do say this that by the time
we go into the next election I have no doubt at all that on
this issue it will be a political minus for the Opposition.
JOURNALIST: Overnight or yesterday BP and Caltex told the
inquiry into petrol pricing that they were going to seek
compensation as a result of the petrol freeze. Will you
consider that?
PM: We have the processes and tribunals where they can go
and put their arguments on this.
JOURNALIST: Will you consider compensation though?
PM: No what I'm saying is that there is a tribunal that
they go to and make their arguments. It is for those
tribunals to make their decisions about whether they have
established an argument and what pricing level should come
out of that and I will allow those processes to take their
course.
JOURNALIST: Finally there was a report today that
Mrs Kirner might come to you seeking extra funding for
Victoria to help her out of the position that Victoria is
now in since she has just taken over the premiership. Can
you see yourself giving Victoria any more money over and
above the Commonwealth grants?
PM: Mrs Kirner came to see me yesterday and I had quite a
long meeting with Mrs Kirner, and Mr White and Mr Roper, two
of her important economic ministers, they didn't ask for
additional assistance. They discussed certain issues with
us and as is appropriately within our power and areas of
responsibilities to do things which may be helpful, we will.
But that does not involve the giving of additional
assistance.
JOURNALIST: Can you elaborate on what those issues are?
PM: I could but it's not appropriate that I do.
JOURNALIST: Do you think she is going to be able to pull
Victoria out of it?
PM: I think she can. It would be stupid for me to say yes
she is right they are going to achieve all they want to do
and win the next election. But I think they can.
ends
0