if
PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
PRESS CONFERENCE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA,
26 NOVEMBER 1995
E& OE PROOF COPY
PM: Well you might recall that in my speech on United Nations Day on
24 October on the 50th anniversary of the birth of the United Nations
and the adoption of its charter I said that I didn't believe that the
strategic framework which now exists in the world that first of all it
would persist forever and that the strategic framework had changed
substantially from that which obtained in the Cold War period. And
I believed it was now possible to think about and develop a concrete
program of making the world free of nuclear weapons because I think
that the sort of world which now exists where you have nuclear powers
committed to reducing their arsenals as we have the Russians and
the United States and the unlikelihood of using their weapons
defensively won't continue forever. I think the one thing we can be
sure of is that this position will not obtain forever. There is a view
amongst some of the nuclear powers that they have nuclear weapons
and they will commit themselves to the non-proliferation treaty and not
use them offensively. But this is not a static model. It is not going to
be the half a dozen weapons states and the rest of the countries
without weapons. Unless something is done about this, there will be
many states with nuclear weapons. And now, I think, is the time to
move. Unless we take action now, we won't make the appropriate
steps to begin reducing that 50,000 warhead inventory which is now
laying around the world and unless we address the issues of
proliferation and the threshold states that is those on the edge of
getting nuclear weapons as well as nuclear terrorism the nuclear
competition which characterised much of the last half century will
continue again after this pause. But one thing will be certain, it won't
even have the stability of the bipolarity of the Cold War. It will be a
multi-polar, unstable world where no one is certain what the policy of
deterrence really means and no one would be able to guarantee what
that action will really imply. And I think we are reminded powerfully of
this by the French fourth test in the Pacific and also the claims of
nuclear terrorism in Russia with the Chechen rebels claiming to have
placed nuclear materials and explosives in Moscow. We are just going
to see more and more of this as these materials, the mechanisms, all
of these devices and, of course, intellectual property start moving
around the world. So this Government believes that this is a time to
make a start and that is actually beyond the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty to which we will be deeply involved, that is beyond the cut-off
convention, beyond the conventional framework. But, rather, to
actually start hoeing into the problem of the 50,000 warheads because
we won't actually get the whole notion of non-proliferation moving
unless we actually see the warhead numbers coming down and, of
course, part of this will be enjoining the United States and Russia to
move swiftly under their START obligations. Now I announced in my
speech in October that we had decided to set up a Commission
because there has got to be a starting point for all this where do you
begin on this very large task? And you might recall that Australia was
very deeply involved in the Chemical Weapons Convention and
therein we removed one whole category of weapons and, of course,
the verification procedures with chemical weapons are even more
difficult than nuclear weapons. So this is why we have decided to
think about a beginning and the beginning is getting together a group
of recognised specialists on this subject, getting a group of people who
have had experience on this issue and try to come to terms with how
we might begin to actually take the arsenals down. So we have
decided to set up a Commission of eminent individuals who prepare a
group which would try to work through the difficult and complex issues
of how we get to a nuclear weapons free world and how to make
practical recommendations towards it. And I am happy today to
announce the names of the individuals who have agreed to participate
in the Commission. I think they are an outstanding and authoritative
group of thinkers, statesmen, scientists, disarmament experts, military
strategists, people who have lived with and in the Cold War and who
have a wide experience of international security and disarmament
issues. They include: Mr Michel Rocard, the former Prime Minister of
France; Mr Robert McNamara, the former United States Secretary of
Defense; Professor Joseph Rotblat, the winner of the 1995 Nobel
Prize for Peace and founder of the Pugwash Conference; Field
Marshal the Lord Carver, the former Chief of the British Defence Staff;
the distinguished Australian analyst, Professor Robert ONeill, from
Oxford University; Dr Maj-Britt Theorin, who is a Member of the
European Parliament and former President of the International Peace
Bureau; Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, who is Executive Chairman of
UNSCOM which has worked to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction; Professor Roald Sagdeev, the Science Adviser to former
President Gorbachev; and, General Lee Butler, who was formerly the
head of the United States Strategic Air Command. Other members
Ambassador Celso Amorim, from Brazil; Ambassador Jayantha
Dhanapala, from Sri Lanka; Ambassador Dr Nabil Elaraby, from Egypt;
Professor Ryukichi Imai, from Japan; and, Datuk Dr Ronald McCoy,
from Malaysia have a distinguished record of achievement in arms
control and international diplomacy. The convenor of the group will be
Mr Richard Butler, who is Australia's Permanent Representative to the
United Nations and many, of course, know him and remember him as
our Ambassador for Disarmament from 1983 to 1988. 1 don't think we
could have hoped for a more impressive and distinguished group and
I am very grateful to all of them for agreeing to participate. That they
have done so despite their busy schedules, I think is a reflection of the
seriousness with which they regard the issues in the Commission
which we will address. I think they bring a wide range of expertise, the
experience and views to the task and while they won't be representing
Governments, they include people from nuclear and non-nuclear
powers and from a range of regions. So I am very confident that the
Commission's report will make a substantive and serious contribution
to the question of how we can rid the world of the threat of nuclear
weapons. I might add that the first meeting of the Commission will be
in Australia in January and we envisage two or three other meetings,
some of which will be overseas. Its final report will be submitted to the
1996 session of the United Nations General Assembly and to the
Committee on Disarmament. Could I record here my gratitude to the
Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, for his assistance in putting this group
together. The Commission will be supported by a Secretariat drawn
from the Arms Control and Disarmament area of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, which you might know has got a very high
international reputation and, of course, we will be liaising with
Government and non-Government organisations as the work of the
group progresses. So, in all, this is I hope the kind of beginning that,
certainly in my generation, we could have only dreamt about through
the Cold War years. And going beyond the actual commitments by the
United States and by Russia, under their START obligations, to take
this opportunity while we do have this strategic pause and to see if we
can't stop the spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons and to
make that believable and to make it stick we really have to start pulling
the stockpiles down and Australia is a non-nuclear power but with
reasonable credentials in disarmament. I mean as a medium-sized
country we have, I think, fought beyond our weight in disarmament
issues over the years and, I think, we can bring to the line again the
sort of vitality and integrity which we have brought to the
Chemical Weapons Convention and do something positive here.
J: Given the recent behaviour of the French though, Prime Minister, at
the end of the day can you see a country like France agreeing with any
recommendations to start pulling the stockpiles apart?
PM: Well I think the answer to that is yes for the obvious reasons. I mean
you had former President Valery Giscard d'Estaing saying the greatest
threat against France is really from the proliferators of nuclear
weapons, from the states which now no longer have them or from
terrorism. And having a nuclear stockpile is not going to deal with that.
Now, you know, there is a clear understanding on this. Where there
isn't a clear understanding amongst the nuclear powers, I believe, is
that they see some sort of static model that there are so many of them
and that is all there will be. Of course this is just, in the end, not true.
What will happen is that other states will gather nuclear weapons and
there is no moral reason why one state should claim the right to have
them say Britain or France on the basis they say that they are
democracies, or the United States, but other countries who say they
shouldn't have them because they are not a democratic state,
for instance. I mean there is no criteria for the possession of nuclear
weapons and so they will continue to proliferate.
J: You put the argument about the possibility of proliferation of weapons
amongst smaller states at CHOGM and it didn't really seem to me to
get a lot of agreement from British Prime Minister Major. Do you think
that he will come to see your point of view and why?
PM: Well I think it is just not our point of view, it will be in the end an
international point of view. What we are seeking to do is to draw the
threads together on the argument from people who have been involved
with it and around it over a long period of time. And then produce this
report to the United Nations and it will then be, in a sense, a wider
body and certainly not just Australia sort of putting that view and I think
anybody who then takes the view, well it is a static situation and there
won't be anymore nuclear weapons than there currently are has a very
naive view of the world.
J: What has been the international response so far to this initiative?
PM: Well I think the international response is the acceptances. I mean that
is the best guide to the international response.
J: Wouldn't there still be a danger of nuclear warfare even if you got rid
of all of the weapons given that many of these western countries
actually have the technology to rebuild them quickly in a time of
conflict?
PM: Yes, that is going to be there. But I just don't think that the impetus to
non-proliferation is going to be as successful if the world takes the
view that we will keep the absurd 50,000 stockpile. In other words, are
you to be believed by these states when you say there shouldn't be
any further proliferation, but we will hang on to this absurd stockpile
with all of the attendant risks that that brings. Now no doubt, one of
the major issues in this discussion will be where the deterrent policy
goes as the stockpile comes down. But, as you know, you still have an
effective set of deterrents with 200 weapons, let alone 50,000.
J: Have you spoken directly to any of the participants in the group to
encourage their involvement?
PM: I have. I spoke to a number. But, by and large, what has happened
here is the Foreign Minister and I have talked about the nature of the
group, some of the potential candidates and tried to, you know, get
down to a choice of people who we think can reflect all of the various
views strategic; political; that come to it with a scientific background;
a moral, philosophical background; a technical background;
experience in disarmament and we have narrowed it down to a
choice of people and between us we have spoken to them.
The Foreign Minister has spoken to most of them.
J: Will there be a Canberra-based secretariat to support this and will we
be financing that?
PM: Yes, it will be supported by the group who have traditionally, in the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, focussed on this issue and
we will be carrying the cost of it.
J: At the end of the day, what do you expect this group to produce? Is it
a report that will simply be a focus for discussion, or will it contain
within it concrete recommendations for further pragmatic steps?
PM: Well if the United Nations itself were to commission such a study, it
would probably go to if not the same people similar people.
But then, of course, to get such a study going would require, you know,
the general political difficulties that are required to be encountered by
the United Nations in any such initiative. In a sense, we have by
taking our initiative we can take this initiative in a unilateral sense
and then present this report to the United Nations and to the
Conference on Disarmament.
J: Mr Keating, just on another matter. This final week of Parliament, how
crucial is that in terms of setting the scene for next year's election?
PM: Not very crucial I don't think. I think, you know, people in this country
will decide what they want to do, who they want to govern them on
what the parties have done, how credible they are, how effective they
are and how effectively they are led.
J: On the forest debate in Cabinet tomorrow, it seems that the
environment movement isn't happy with the process that has been set
up and that the outcomes under that process are not going to satisfy
them. Does that concern you in the lead up to an election?
PM: Well let's wait and see how we go at it first.
J: Mr Keating, on Meet the Press Peter Reith has said today that the
Coalition will not guarantee necessarily equal pay for equal work?
PM: Well that is the issue. You see, in that sense, nothing in the CRA
dispute changed the Coalition's position. They don't believe in equal
pay for equal work. They won't ever have the no disadvantage test for
enterprise bargaining that the Government has. In short, they are
committed to cutting the wages of working Australians. That is their
business, it has always been their business, it will remain their
business and what you will see is, as Mr Reith refused to give the
commitment on the no disadvantage test on ABC Radio about three or
four weeks ago you have seen him today refuse to give the same
commitment on equal pay for equal work. You have got Mr Howard
slipping and sliding on the Commission saying he will keep it. Yet he
said he will " stab it in the stomach", to use his own words and then he
tried to get out of that by saying the Government was in fact talking
about coming at it from the rear or something. In fact, he was just
asked directly, if I remember it, " so you are going to abolish it?".
" As I have said before, we will stab it in the stomach." I mean,
basically, they have been opposed to the Commission being in the
system and it is the Commission which guaranteed the equal work for
equal pay. The Commission would go. But whether the Commission
went or not, they don't believe in the principle of equal work for equal
pay.
J: Mr Howard says that prospective buyers of the Sydney Airport aren't
worried by [ inaudible]?
PM: I mean on what basis did he make that claim. I mean it is just
nonsense. But I noticed he did say, it was not just about my seat.
So he has admitted that the view from the Headland of Bennelong has
been completely central to this process for him and I noticed that some
reporting of the Senate Committee, of course which was chaired by the
Coalition, and the report didn't make reference to the fact that,
of course, Sydney Airport's capacity would be cut by about
per cent. I mean what Mr Howard has done here is just for the most
base political motives, saving his own skin and his own seat, he has
decided not only to press his view about opening up the cross-wind
runway at Sydney and dramatically reduce Sydney's capacity.
But, in doing it, actually do something which knocks around the
budget, delays the process and, more than that, I think calls into the
question the efficiency of Sydney as the hub for airline operations in
Australia and particularly as we approach the Olympics.
J: Mr Keating have you spoken to Bill Kelty since you returned home?
PM: Well, Russell, I have got no intention at these press conferences of
telling you who I have spoken to in the last day or two, or week or two.
I speak to Bill Kelty quite often. But, you know, you can put your
glasses down on asking me questions about that. I will tell you one
thing I would like to say, though. I noticed that John Howard, today,
made very clear that he would basically walk away from the
Government's 25 per cent commitment to the aged pension,
per cent of average weekly earnings relativity to the aged pension.
He was asked repeatedly and all he would say is that he would go for
the indexation and you might have seen a press release by my
colleague, Peter Baldwin, today and he said the fact is that Labor has
increased pensions by 14 per cent in real terms when measured
against the Consumer Price Index. Mr Howard says he will only
maintain pensions in line with the Consumer Price Index. If this is all
we had done, then single pensions would now be $ 20 a week worse
off and couples would be about $ 30 a week worse off. And even this
promise is suspect given that pensions fell by 2 per cent in real terms
during Mr Howard's tenure as Treasurer. So he was pressed a
number of times and he wouldn't give the commitment. He finally said,
weakly, " well that is the Government's policy". Yes, that is this
Government's policy, but that made no reference to what any
Government he might lead, to its policies. In other words, he has
effectively refused not effectively, blatantly refused to say that he
would maintain the aged pension at 25 per cent of average weekly
earnings.
J Mr Keating, on another contentious privatisation the Government
has got a week to resolve the sale of ANL. Do you hold out much
hope of the MUA [ inaudible]?
PM: Well I have got to go through those issues. I have been out of them
for a couple of weeks being abroad unfortunately. But I will get back to
it this week. Can I just say on a couple of other points, Mr Howard
said he wouldn't be dismantling Medicare. He said precisely that.
He said " we will effectively dismantle Medicare". He said this when he
was Leader of the Opposition heading for an election. He has made
similar references in the run up to the 1993 election. They have
opposed Medicare always and when John Howard says he will keep
Medicare, he is just simply not to be believed. It is just, basically, a
political lie. He will tear Medicare apart and junk it at the first
opportunity. On the cross-media rules he was asked a question about
Mr Black and he said that " any increase in equity for Mr Black would
need to be considered in the future". But when asked what the criteria
would be to give Mr Black extra equity in the Sydney Morning Herald,
The Age and the Financial Review, he said " he wasn't there to put
Mr Black's case." But it was not there putting Mr Black's case, if he
was the Government it would be the approving authority. He was quite
reasonably asked what would be the criteria for increased equity in the
Sydney Morning herald, The Age and the Financial Review and he
wouldn't say. He is trying to have the best of all worlds. To tell Black
he will give him more, but not tell the public on what basis he will give
him more. And he also, when asked about the cross-media rules,
talked about again, he wouldn't come clean there having voted
against the 15 per cent cross-media rule in the Senate, he wouldn't
come clean other than to say that he believed in Australian ownership
which is code for giving Mr Packer, I am sure, more equity in the
Sydney Morning Herald. So, essentially, what he is telling us is under
a Coalition Government, somebody could own a major television
network and capital city newspaper in the same city. Now I don't know
whether Mr Howard thinks that that sort of slipping and sliding is going
to get him around the real issues. But he was slipping and sliding all
over the place today and making it very clear that he is going to be as
duplicitous and as tricky as he possibly can be.
J: Just to be clear on that, Mr Keating, are you saying that Mr Howard
would approve Mr Packer getting Fairfax?
PM: Well don't take any notice of what I say. Take notice of what he has
done. This week he has voted against the proposition that there be a
per cent upper limit on newspaper proprietors holding interests in
television and vice versa. He has voted against it. So he has made it
very clear where he stands.
J: But that is what you think?
PM: What?
J: You think he would approve of Mr Packer owning Fairfax and the
television station?
PM: Absolutely. I said that earlier in the year and all that happened this
week is that it was borne out.
ends.