E&OE...............................................
Ladies and gentlemen, the additional information I have regarding
the situation in Iraq is that since speaking to President Clinton
I also discussed the matter at length with the Canadian Prime Minister,
Mr Chretien and I will be discussing it later today with the Prime
Minister of New Zealand, Mrs Shipley. We are, as Australia, intensifying
our diplomatic activity. We'll be calling in the Iraqi Charge
today, to register, in the strongest possible terms, our wish that
this issue be settled diplomatically and that is by Iraq honouring
the undertakings that were part of the Gulf War settlement and allowing
the inspection of the sites in Iraq which are believed could house
the material which is so destructive and whose proliferation would
be so threatening to world security.
I'll be having some further discussion with the Chief of the
Defence Force this afternoon. He's, of course, been in very regular
discussion with the Defence Minister, Mr McLachlan, and as you all
know, Cabinet will be discussing the matter tomorrow. And as further
developments occur I will keep, not only the media but through them,
the Australian people fully informed of what is occurring.
I still remain of the view that if this matter can be settled by diplomatic
processes, that is clearly the best way. Nobody wants a force used.
Nobody wants any lives put at risk. Nobody wants the destruction of
civilian assets and a loss of civilian life or indeed of the lives
of military personnel. What is at stake is something that is more
than just an argument between the United States and Iraq.
The chemical material which is at the heart of this dispute does have
the potential to devastate millions of people. And no civilised country
can support a situation where a rogue State is able to thumb its nose
at the rest of the world, protect installations that might house this
material and thereby send a signal to the rest of the world that that
kind of defiant behaviour can be realised.
JOURNALIST:
Is Australia under threat from that material, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Laurie, any country is under threat if a dictator, such as Saddam,
is able to protect that material and retain the potential to deliver
it against a neighbouring country. The idea that Australia can look
with equanimity at a situation where Iraq could use this kind of material
on a neighbouring State, with all that is involved in that, is unsustainable.
JOURNALIST:
Will he use it against us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the important thing, in the short term, is that he has a capacity
to use it against neighbouring States. And if he has a capacity to
use it against neighbouring States and he is not denied that capacity
it could only be a matter time when either he or somebody else develops
the capacity to use it against, not just neighbouring States, but
other States.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think if there is to be military action against Iraq it is
preferable that it takes place under the aegis of the United Nations?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is, on my advice, plenty of legal United Nations authority
there already. Because what the United States and its allies would
be doing, if force becomes necessary, would be to enforce clear decisions
of the United Nations already.
I see the defence of the authority of the United Nations as a very
important element in this issue. It's one of the reasons, that
I enumerated yesterday, as to why Australia should pay very close
attention to President Clinton's request.
JOURNALIST:
So Australia will be insisting on a further United Nations resolution?
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand that a further United Nations resolution could be in
contemplation. But it is my advice and my understanding that there
is adequate authority anyway.
JOURNALIST:
Does Australia risk it's trade with Saudi Arabia and other middle
eastern countries if it joins a coalition that hasn't got wide
support?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't believe so. In the end, of course, you have to make a
balanced judgement and in the end, although trade interests are critical,
they are very important to us, you have to make other judgements as
well. But I would be optimistic that in any event trade would not
be effected.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, have any Australian naval elements yet been deployed
into the western Indian Ocean?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not going to comment on any possible forms that our contribution,
if we decide on it, may take. But no authority has been given for
any deployment of anything.
JOURNALIST:
Why do you think civilised countries in Europe and elsewhere are reluctant
to join a military venture against Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is too early at this stage to make any conclusive judgements about
who will join.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, as you said earlier, if force is necessary, is it
your view that if Saddam Hussein persists, as he has done in the past,
that it will be necessary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Paul, the intelligent, constructive thing to say is what you believe,
and that is that I hope he will back down and allow the inspection
of the sites.
JOURNALIST:
But if not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I hope that doesn't become necessary but at the end of
the day it may. I mean, the whole basis of what I have been saying
in the last 48 hours contemplates that that may be necessary and that
is why President Clinton has been in touch with us because it might
be necessary. But he said to me on Saturday afternoon that he hoped
it wasn't and he still entertained some optimism that it may
not be necessary. There are some signs that it may not be necessary
but they are not terribly strong at the present time. I hope it is
not.
JOURNALIST:
And what do you know of this chemical material, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
It has quite diabolical effects on the nervous system. It has very
destructive effects on the human body. I mean, it is the most appalling
material. And you have got to remember that you are dealing with somebody
who has demonstrated in the past that he is not reluctant to use material
that most people regard as absolutely beyond the pall against his
own civilian population.
JOURNALIST:
If you send Australian personnel there, how will they be protected
from that material?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that is a sort of question, Laurie, that I will answer at
the appropriate time and that is if and when a decision is taken.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what do you say to people like Anthony Albanese who says
we shouldn't get involved in the war and will only hurt Iraqi
civilians?
PRIME MINISTER:
I note the very positive comments that have been made by Mr Beazley
and by Mr Brereton.
JOURNALIST:
What about the comments of General Norman Schwarzkopf today, who believes
that a bombing mission wouldn't achieve its end and has cautioned
that it could lead America into a Vietnam type situation?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have long since learnt, Paul, in these sorts of situations to see
the totality of the comments rather than just those that have been
reported. Reported by other media, that is.
JOURNALIST:
Will we consider making any representations to the Saudis over their
refusal of air fields to the United States?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't have that in contemplation at the present. But
I don't want to draw the line on anything at the moment.
JOURNALIST:
Do your talks with the Canadians and New Zealanders indicate there
may be a joint operation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I've spoken to the Canadian Prime Minister. I haven't
spoken to Mrs Shipley yet. We had a very general discussion about
the whole issue, that is Mr Chretien and myself. And the question
of how our participation and the structure of the operation, how that
would all unfold, is not something that I want to speculate about
at the moment. The situation is that Cabinet will consider it tomorrow
and if and when such a decision is taken then I'll have something
more to say.
JOURNALIST:
Does the probability that the coalition, in this effort, would be
a lot smaller than the one in 1991 increase the likelihood that Australia's
military role will have to be larger and more active than it was in
91?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is getting into the area of speculating on the assumption that
we've taken a particular decision and I'm not going to do
that at the moment.
JOURNALIST:
Is Canada inclined to help?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's for Canada to say what Canada is going to do. That's
a matter for the Canadian Government.
JOURNALIST:
Who will see the Iraqi Charge this afternoon, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the head of the Foreign Affairs Department.
JOURNALIST:
Sir, can I ask you about a couple of other issues in case you have
to dash off. Has Mr Zammit notified you today that he plans to resign
from the Liberal Party?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Did he say why and what's your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's about airport noise. And I think, with great respect,
he's being unreasonable and he's not serving the interests
of his electorate. Because aircraft noise over the electorate of Lowe
is a lot less now than what it was in March of 1996.
JOURNALIST:
Is that damaging to the Party and the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think given the insubstantial basis of the resignation, no.
JOURNALIST:
Will you be running a candidate for Liberal Party, in Lowe...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Will the Liberal Party be running a candidate in Lowe at the next
election?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. Well, that is a matter for the organisation, but I would expect
that the organisation would elect to do so.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that Mr Zammit has enhanced his chances as running as
an Independent rather than has a Liberal?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't.
JOURNALIST:
Can we have your comment on the death of Maurie Rudd, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. I was very sorry to hear of Maurie's death. He's had
a very long and courageous battle against cancer. I met him last year
when he led a taskforce of steel delegates to see me following the
BHP closure in Newcastle. And I was very impressed with him as a union
leader and as a great fighter for the interests of the Hunter. And
I remember very vividly calling on him in his hospital at the John
Hunter Hospital and in the company of his two children. Talking to
him and then despite his obvious discomfort he showed a great deal
of spirit and an enormous amount of strength. And to his son and daughter
I extend my sympathy. It's been a very sad time for them. They
lost their mother not so long ago. And I think he represented the
very finest traditions of union leadership and the spirit of the Hunter
Valley. And the people of Newcastle owe a great deal to him.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can I ask you another question on Iraq. Will you reconvene
Parliament if you make a decision to send troops to the Gulf, as Bob
Hawke did in 1991?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would expect that there will be, and I can say now, there will be
adequate opportunity for parliamentary debate when the Parliament
resumes. You've got to bear in mind that Parliament is due to
sit in, I think, three weeks from today. And I think it's, when
you look at the various timetables, and I'm not going to get
precise, that will allow a situation where there is adequate parliamentary
debate. I did check the time-line last time. The actual decision to
commit was made before Parliament had its debate and a resolution
was presented by Mr Hawke seeking parliamentary endorsement. And I
can say now, I will certainly allow a full parliamentary debate on
the issue. And I say again that I will ensure that the Opposition
is fully briefed on all aspects of the issue. I spoke to Mr Beazley
on Saturday evening and I'm arranging today for Mr Beazley to
be briefed by a senior officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs
about the background to the issue. I've also indicated to him,
through his Chief of Staff, that he'll be notified of the Cabinet
decision tomorrow before any announcement is made. It's important,
on these issues, that the Opposition be fully involved and treated
with all courtesies and be given the maximum degree of information
as is appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
Just to clarify, Prime Minister. Are you saying you don't expect
any action for three weeks?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that given
that Parliament is resuming in three weeks, I don't think the
issue, if there were a decision taken for Australian involvement and
if there were action including that involvement, I don't think
that issue would be ancient history by the time Parliament resumes.
In other words, I don't think at the moment there's a case
for bringing forward the resumption of Parliament. But I do assure
people that we will have a full and adequate debate on the issue if
there is an Australian involvement.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the ANZ job ads series has been out today and shows
a six per cent fall in January. The ANZ Bank is saying this is probably
the first impact of Asia. Is that consistent with the information
that the Government's getting?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it's not. I think it's just too early to make that sort
of judgement. And the material that we're getting and the surveys
are going in different directions. You had that very bullish survey
from ACCESS, what, 10 days ago. You've had some very strong surveys
by the ACCI. You've had a couple going, not so bullish, going
in the other direction. It's just too early to make a judgement
about what's going to happen. Our best advice is that although
there's obviously going to be some flow through, the domestic
economy is still extremely strong and that employment growth has been
very strong. And there's a great deal of confidence around, domestically,
about the future of the Australian economy.
[Ends]