Subjects: Meeting with President Chirac; World Trade; Speed Rail; nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights; helicopter project for the RAAF; submarines; President Wahid; relations with Indonesia; Anzac Day Service; history education in schools; Visit to Gallipoli and speech.
E&OE..................................
Well ladies and gentleman, as always, it's a great pleasure to be back in Paris and I had a really very positive and very good two hour or more formal discussion and working lunch with President Chirac.
It's the first face-to-face meeting between an Australian Prime Minister and the French President since June of 1994. Our relationship did go through a difficult period in the wake of French nuclear tests. Our position on that was well understood. The French position was maintained with equal strength. That is an issue that has now been put behind us. The bilateral relationship is in very good shape. It's always had a very strong emotional and historical element, something that President Chirac mentioned to me
today in his words of, his opening words of welcome and we had the opportunity to cover the whole gamut of the relationship between the two countries and I gained some of his valuable insights into the situation in the Middle East which is of particular interest to me as I am going to Israel on Saturday and the French of course have had long and detailed
involvement in the Middle East and a very deep understanding of the attitude of many countries such as Syria and Lebanon which are perhaps not available to others.
I was also of course able to get his views on future political directions in Europe and in Russia. The progress of the Euro and monetary union within the European Union. I told the President that a French presence in the South Pacific was welcomed by Australia and we noted the progress being made in relation to New Caledonia and he was also interested in our views on the situation in East Timor and Indonesia. I took the opportunity to thank President for the very quick and valuable contribution of the French to the INTERFET Forces.
Overall, it was a very good start to my three day visit to France. I invited the President to visit Australia and I hope he has an opportunity over the next year or two to do exactly that. And I think I can say that our relationship which fundamentally was always very good but did, let's be frank, go through a difficult stage over nuclear testing but that issue is behind us.
I did, of course, point out to him how important it was for Australia that there be a new trade round that the common agriculture policy of the European Union continue to be seen by Australia as unfair. I adverted to Howe Leather and said that Australians felt very keenly that existing world trade arrangements could result in a relatively modest subsidy being given by, or alleged subsidy, being given by the Australian government to Howe Leather being banged on the head yet major massive subsidies given by the
European Union, the Americans and Japanese to their agricultural producers escape similar censure.
The President said, of course, that France had a big interest in the existing common agriculture policy arrangement but he did indicate that France supported the inauguration of a new world trade round. He thought the involvement of the developing countries in the process and also the involvement of them in the environmental meetings that will take place in the months and years ahead was very important. That's all I want to say on
that subject but I'm open to questions on that or indeed on anything else.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, did the French give any undertakings that there will be no future nuclear testing in the South Pacific?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Did you ask him?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, did you raise the French WTO proposals, the French wanting to protect their farmers by labelling it a cultural [inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me put it. no I didn't but we did talk about that issue and it's quite clear that he wasn't trying to run that line with me.
JOURNALIST:
Did he give any ground at all on, you know, on this, the matter of a cap or EU subsidies..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he said that he thought eventually progress would be made in this area but he did point out that there were a lot of French national interests involved and I indicated to him that there are a lot of Australian national interests involved. The encouraging thing to me was that he said France supported a new world trade round. I thought that was good. I hadn't expected him to be as specific as that.
JOURNALIST:
Did he give any details on the, I think you mentioned relations between Europe and Russia, the European attitude to European / Russian alliance on the question of US defence moves at the moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think that's in his contemplation.
JOURNALIST:
Any discussion or thought of any new agreements on, in France in the economic area .. [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No, both of this took a rather pragmatic view towards economic relations. We thought that dealing with particular issues where potential French and Australian interests were involved was more profitable than perhaps indulging one's self in the glossy comfort of framework agreements. He raised, for example, he raised four specific things with me, he raised speed rail, he raised French aspirations for the new nuclear reactor at Lucas
Heights. He raised the helicopter project for the RAAF and he also expressed a passing interest in submarines.
JOURNALIST:
What did he have to say on the speed rail?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he hopes the project goes ahead.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] . what is your view on that Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I told him that the Government is still assessing it and it's not entirely divorced from the final decision we take on a second airport for Sydney and he agreed with me that building second airports was hard.
JOURNALIST:
And what did he say on the other, in terms of the...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I said in relation to helicopters that would be something that would be assessed in the normal way and I said to him in relation to all of these things where there's an interest by French companies that if on the merits the French company deserves the contract, it ought to get it.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] . discuss the matter of a new plane for your VIP fleet?
PRIME MINISTER:
No he didn't. No he didn't. He didn't raise that.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] .. a consensus on the difficulty of building a second airport that it therefore follows that a second bigger airport [inaudible].?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know that we sort of got into the situation of agreeing, saying there was a consensus on it. It's just that a wry smile of understanding and difficult political experiences gone through passed over his face when I mentioned it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the French have been very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. What was the President's assessment on the future of the peace process in .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's like myself, he's optimistic but he realises that it's going to be hard.
JOURNALIST:
Can you be more specific?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't think, he wasn't and I don't think anybody can. I mean it's better now than it was twelve months ago but it's still fraught with a lot of difficulty and there is still a range of views within the, within the ranks of the Palestinians. I was reading an article this morning on the plane that we shared, in the Financial Times, about that, about how some of the younger Palestinians are perhaps not so happy with Arafat's position.
It's difficult but I mean I remain an optimist and for the first time you've got a very positive approach being taken by the leadership of both sides towards towards getting an outcome and I think.. I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Australia would support.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not going to start laying down positions. I'm going to Israel and I'll be seeing Yasser Arafat when I'm there and you know our long-standing position on this. It was well articulated in, on behalf of the Coalition, in a paper written by its former Coalition spokesman on foreign affairs some years ago.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]..
PRIME MINISTER:
It was a very very well written policy if I might say Mr Ambassador. I'll send you a copy of it.
JOURNALIST:
You spoke of the discussions you were having about Australian projects. What was the nature of your conversation about submarines?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I said that if people were interested in making a contribution, we were happy to look at them.
JOURNALIST:
Did he express an interest in buying.
PRIME MINISTER:
He said they had technology and they had expertise and I said well we'll look at any offers.
JOURNALIST:
On the question of the second airport Mr Howard, can you issue a timetable now. This seems to be particularly delayed. What is your timetable for a decision?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've always been fairly careful in setting a precise timetable. It will be resolved soon but I'm not going to get hung up with a date.
JOURNALIST:
Given the second airport has some impact on the seat of Parramatta what do you make of Ross Cameron's remarks that Anzac Day is overdone and that the spirit of egalitarianism that it engenders militates against excellence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't since his remarks on this achieved a bit of comment I haven't sort of re-read the Bulletin article - I don't know whether I read it in full in the first instance anyway - so I may be doing the man an injustice, maybe you are too? I don't know exactly what he said but alright okay I'm sure you've got it there but can I simply say that I don't think the spirit of Anzac or the emphasis on Anzac Day as being overdone. Of course I don't but he's got a right to express his views and I think the reaction of a few
people like Senator Schacht and so forth have been a bit over the top.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you mentioned about having invited President Chirac to visit Australia. Indonesian President Wahid was to visit Australia in May and he's now not coming indefinitely. How concerned are you about that decision and what does it say about the state of relations between the two countries given he is going elsewhere and not coming to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well none of that Karen is surprising to me. I always knew it was going to take a while to rebuild the relationship and it is. You can't do what we did in relation to East Timor and then expect within a blink of an eyelid that the relationship with Indonesia be back to where it was. It will never be the same and that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's not to say it won't grow closer than it is now and in any event many of the day to day -
the bread and butter of the relationship is still quite good. But I understand that there's a sensitivity. We did the right thing in relation to East Timor and everyone knows that and it's important at a time like this that people act in a mature sensible measured way and you don't overreact but equally you take the opportunity as I do to acknowledge the progress that is being made in Indonesia towards building a more open society for which the President can take a great deal of the credit.
JOURNALIST:
You seem to be acknowledging there is an element of residual irritation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Karen I've never denied .. I've never suggested otherwise. It's not a question of acknowledging something for the first time..
JOURNALIST:
About his decision I mean.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my understanding is that he still intends to come but the date of that is totally imprecise and that's my understanding of it. Now that may change I don't know but I accept. I always have accepted that the relationship is going through a difficult phase. I mean it would have been extraordinary if it hadn't gone through a difficult phase. You can't have it both ways. You can't support strongly what Australia did in relation to East Timor and say that it should have had no impact on our relationship with Indonesia. That
is a self-evident contradiction.
It was inevitable that there was going to be an impact on our relationship but the important thing is that we did what was right. You don't calculate these things in terms of weighted impacts. You decide what is the right thing is to do and we did the right thing. But also let's just look forward a bit for a longer period of time. You are seeing built in Indonesia a more open and democratic society and the President deserves a lot of credit for that. He's behaved quite courageously in relation to following up many of
the complaints about human rights abuses in Timor. He's got a long record of tolerance and openness towards minority groups within his own society.
It's important on an occasion like this that you look to the longer term and you don't sort of overreact in relation to a particular incident but also be sensible enough to understand that any relationship that passed through the phase that ours with Indonesia did over East Timor had to be put under strain and we had to accept that it was going to take quite a while for that phase to pass.
JOURNALIST:
Are you saying that it will never be the same again and that is not necessarily a bad thing?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
Why isn't it a bad thing?
PRIME MINISTER:
To suggest it's automatically a bad thing as I think your question implies has as its assumption that the pre-Timor state of the relationship, or the state of the relationship over the last 25 years was perfect, I don't think it was and I think that what we've learnt is that there were some imperfections in that. Anyway, we're not rolling back what's happened and we're not wanting to roll back what has happened. What has happened has
happened for the best of reasons both in terms of principle and the Australian national interest but we will have in the fullness of time we will have a different relationship with Indonesia, but it will be on a sounder footing of mutual self-respect and that is what .
JOURNALIST:
How will you.
PRIME MINISTER:
That, if I can finish Paul, that is what is important in this.
JOURNALIST:
So Prime Minister..
PRIME MINISTER:
Paul is trying to ask a question.
JOURNALIST:
I was just wondering how are we working on it? Apparently there is a view in Indonesia that we were triumphalistic about the way we eventually went about talking after East Timor. I mean do you accept that? And does it make it harder for us to rebuild the relationship?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't accept that. Whether it's a view expressed in Indonesia and I think I saw it written in an editorial in a newspaper this morning. Now that view is quite wrong. I don't know how you can possibly argue that as, that line of argument seems to put, that we can do what we did but do it in a way that wouldn't in anyway have upset the Indonesians. I mean really for people to argue that is to argue the theatre of the absurd and that basically is what is being put by some people at the moment that oh you
could have done everything the Government did but if somebody had dropped a couple of words out and used a couple of different sentences, even though everything that happens still happened, everything would have been hunky-dory with Indonesia. I mean that's a bit unrealistic.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard are you.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Jim was next I'm sorry.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister do you think it might not matter with Indonesia were to go there rather than President Wahid come to Australia? That you could actually in person offer some soothing encouragement to President Wahid and to Indonesian interests. Is there a possibility that that could happen or is it now up to President Wahid to come to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think that when you're dealing with something like this the worst thing to do is to overreact to an individual circumstance. I mean we all know that there's still a sensitivity in Indonesia. You know that. I know that. The Australian public knows that and they don't want their Prime Minister looking as though he's at the behest of each piece of sensitivity. I think they want their Prime Minister to behave in a measured, mature, but
sensible fashion. And the measured, mature, sensible way of handling this is to make it plain that we are about rebuilding the relationship. We are about recognising the points of interest that our countries have in common; that we respect what the President is doing. You don't make or unmake a relationship by the timing or the location of a prime ministerial or presidential visit and the idea that if there's a sensitivity there, and
plainly there is, that it would be removed by some kind of location reversal of head of government visits is really not well placed.
JOURNALIST:
Are you saying that the relationship could be a sort of bread and butter economic relationship for some time and that that's fine?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I used, I think I said the bread and butter of the relationship. I wasn't using bread and butter in a strictly economic sense.
JOURNALIST:
But is that how you see perhaps the relationship going for a while?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no.
JOURNALIST:
The economic trade relationship.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's how the relationship has been going for a while and it will continue to be like that and there are other contacts. Mr Downer has been there. There are other contacts going on elsewhere. And in relation to the Wahid visit - okay he's not coming in the immediate future that's obvious - exactly when he comes I don't know that's up to him. And if people have queries about that they should direct that to the Indonesians. He's welcome
to come to Australia at any time, but I don't find any of this surprising. Indeed I have to say I was a little surprised when he said when he did say it that he was coming to Australia. I was myself somewhat surprised at that. So I don't find what's happened the least bit surprising and we'll just see how things unfold. But you maintain a positive view of the future. You don't get into a lather of sweat over the timing of a particular visit
or who visits who first. I think you just sort of let things unfold, but you also understand there was never any possibility in the world of our relationship being unaffected by what happened in East Timor and it hasn't been affected by the language that people used at the time which I thought was absolutely restrained and utterly unexceptional. It's been affected by the deed. I mean the fact is that Australia led an international movement
to defend the people of East Timor and that inevitably was a difficult situation for the Indonesian government and the Indonesian people and we have not sought since in any way to continue the argument but equally we don't in any way intend to resile from the position we took.
JOURNALIST:
In summary Prime Minister, are you acknowledging that it's the tensions over East Timor that have resulted in the visit being delayed rather than the public line coming out of Jakarta that it is due to internal politics or internal political .?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know what public line you are you referring to?
JOURNALIST:
Well the Foreign Minister . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Well the Foreign Minister's secretary suggesting that it is internal.
PRIME MINISTER:
Internal to Indonesia?
JOURNALIST:
Yes, that had delayed it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think it's appropriate for me to sort of get caught up in some kind of public analysis of what's happening in Indonesia. I don't think that's particularly respectful. Look, I can only say it again that Timor created a tension and when you have that you need time for grass to grow over the wound. I think I've used that expression on a number of occasions. You are still seeing that process being worked through and therefore I don't find what has happened surprising and I may not find other things that
might happen in the next few months surprising either.
JOURNALIST:
So the tension has caused a delay in your mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, Michelle you can do . . . you can make that kind of analysis. I don't
think it's helpful for me to that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
And you know that don't you?
JOURNALIST:
What your suggesting is that we're about to.
PRIME MINISTER:
Michelle well . . .
JOURNALIST:
The analysis.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you can make whatever analysis you like. And, but I find this an interesting development - Channel Seven's Glenn Milne predicting what Sydney Morning Herald's Michelle Grattan is going to say. I can't wait.
JOURNALIST:
You are not arguing against this point?
PRIME MINISTER:
No look, I am not in the business of sort of scoring a debating point about this. I am in the business of looking after our national interest and it's not in the national interest of Australia, given the importance of the relationship between our two countries for me to sort of analysis to the nth degree in the detail that you would want every nuance that you might want to draw from a particular series of events. There is tension still at a political level between our two countries as a result of what happened in East Timor . . .
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister do you think you . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Nothing, if I could finish, nothing that you know that's happened really could have avoided that being the situation.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister are you in contact in any way from Jakarta on that issue? And had an actual explanation given to you for the reason that the visit has been postponed?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I wouldn't have expected it though because there, the contact between the two countries about the timing of the visit had never reached such specificity that a particular date had been agreed on. You see the important thing to remember is that he indicated almost unilaterally that he intended to come, suggested a general date and when we've had discussions it's never been quite possible to nail a particular date down so I didn't, I
wouldn't have expected. I mean it would have been a different matter if we'd actually agreed on a particular date and we'd put an itinerary in place. It never reached that stage. So therefore if they'd have rung up and said if you know this has all appeared and then we'd have asked McCarthy to go on and say, hang on he was meant to be coming on x. It never got to that stage. So I don't, I didn't expect anybody to ring me and give an explanation - they don't owe me an explanation. I don't feel I am owed an explanation as to why he's not coming.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you think, you were talking about the national interest. Do you think it is in the national interest to eventually rebuild the relationship to what it was?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it's in the national interest to have a relationship between our two countries that is built on mutual self-respect and is one that advances the interests of Australia and as well as the interests of Indonesia. And also as in all of our other relationships we have to look at the national interest through the prism of our own analysis of what that amounts to and
not assume that everything that said of us by others is automatically correct.
JOURNALIST:
Has Australia's relationship with Indonesia been too close in recent years? Have the two countries been too close for your liking?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, let me put it this way. I think at some stages in the past there was too great a readiness to accommodate particular positions, but I wouldn't put it anymore strongly than that.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given that . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
At a political level. I don't think the relationship between business and people has been too close. I don't think it can get too close. I think it's important that it be very close.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on another matter, you are about to go to the Somme and commemorate Australia's contribution to the war effort there. Nancy Wake who is of course is the legendary Australia's inspired the White Mouse during the second world war, has today lamented the fact that while she's been recognised by the French Government, the Legion of Honour, her exploits have never been recognised by the Australian Government. Is there anything we can do about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I must say that you know I wasn't immediately aware that they hadn't been Glenn. I know the lady and I admire what she did in World War II in extraordinary circumstances of great danger to her in the French Resistance working with the French Resistance. I'll examine that but I have to say I am just not aware, I was not aware that we hadn't, so I am manifestly unable to answer the question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Sir William Deane or his office has indicated that he will accept the document of reconciliation at Corroboree 2000 on behalf of the Australian people. What is your attitude to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah . . . have you.
JOURNALIST:
I think you . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I would have thought, there has been no document settled yet. I would have thought that the question of how it's received and by whom is a little premature at this stage.
JOURNALIST:
So you're not aware of this process. . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you know that's all I can say.
JOURNALIST:
The report comes from the Council.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the situation is that the Council will decide the form of the document. There are discussions going on between the Government and representatives of the Council. I don't know what the final form of the document will be, I haven't been told but that is a matter for the Council in the end. But they are having discussions with the Government and I have been involved in them. I would have thought to the question of who receives it and you know in what sort, in what circumstance is a little premature at this stage.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard I was wondering if you could tell us how Mrs Howard is feeling today and whether you think she will be well enough to continue the trip with you.
PRIME MINISTER:
She is much better thank you. She is out in Paris at this very moment, so she is obviously feeling pretty well, better. But she did have a very bad middle ear infection which meant that she couldn't fly yesterday, so we drove from Cannakle to Istanbul. We had a very good drive. He did it in three hours forty, he was very good.
JOURNALIST:
At your meeting with Mr Arafat, will you be able to raise the questions and concerns that the Palestinians raised about the memorial to the Israeli athletes in the Sydney Olympics?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well nobody's raised that with me and I saw an observation from Ali Kazak in the paper this morning that they don't want to boycott anything.
JOURNALIST:
So nothing..?
PRIME MINISTER:
Doesn't seem to me to be real big.
JOURNALIST:
Just going back on reconciliation. Given your words in Ankara on the weekend about the - how Ataturk's words in 1934 helped reconcile former enemies, has it changed your thinking about the power of words in the reconciliation.?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have never ever thought that words aren't powerful. That's, and you can look at that from both sides of the debate about formal national apologies. I think words are very powerful and as a political leader I place a great store on the meaning of words and the circumstances in which they are used. I don't see anything inconsistent with what I said in Ankara and the position I'm taking in relation to a formal national apology which you are aware of.
JOURNALIST:
That hasn't modified it at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
My position, the Government's position has not changed. Our position is that while Australians, individual Australians, including myself will feel sorrow and sincere regret about past injustices inflicted on indigenous people and will recognise that some, that many of them continue to feel hurt and trauma as a result, I don't think and the Government doesn't believe that a formal national apology is appropriate. Our position on that has not changed, I've made that plain to the representatives of the Reconciliation
Council in our discussions and that has been our position all along.
JOURNALIST:
And their position is similarly not changing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you should ask them. I mean I think it's very important in something like this that I don't try and speak for others. I can, I speak for the Government and I won't try and speak for the Reconciliation Council. I have had a good discussion with them and I thought the atmosphere of our meetings has been very positive.
JOURNALIST:
Sir Gustav Nossal said that he's given up hope of getting an apology from you, but he does say that miracles do happen. Do those sort of miracles happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe in miracles.
JOURNALIST:
That sort of miracle?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do. I believe passionately in miracles Alexandra.
JOURNALIST:
Do you believe in Jesus Christ?
PRIME MINISTER:
Indeed, I have read both the Old and the New.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister having just visited Gallipoli and seen the extraordinary number of young people there - what are your views about the emphasis of Australian history in schools?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've though for a long time that we haven't . . . we haven't treated the teaching of history in our schools as well as we ought to have. And I was tremendously, how can I, enthused, warmed, encouraged, inspired by the large numbers of young people. And they were all shapes and sizes. They would have all views of about everything. There'd have been people who liked me and people who didn't like me. There'd have been people who were Labor voters, Liberal voters, non-voters - the whole shooting match. There'd have
even been people there who didn't like cricket. And there just would have been a total mixture of people. But the great thing that came through to me was that they all had a simple, uncluttered pride in what had happened. And I thought that was terrific. I haven't seen that kind of, sort of unqualified love of country and country's history in my life before. I found it quite an inspiring experience. And just to walk and talk to them
and to ask them why they came, to hear their views in very direct terms, I just thought it was great and I felt privileged to have had the opportunity of going and anybody that tries in the future to tell me there's something wrong with the younger generations of Australians and they're less concerned about the future of their country and have less pride in their past than earlier generations, then they'll have a pretty powerful argument.
JOURNALIST:
Did hearing their views affect your final draft of your speech at the Dawn Service? How long before had you prepared that draft?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I'd have been working on, I have been working on it for quite a while. But I wanted to say those things, I didn't sort of conduct some sort of focus group. I mean I did, I mean I said there what I wanted to say. I would have said it whether you know people were there or not. But I expected there to be a lot of young people. I was perhaps surprised by the size of the crowd and the simplicity and spontaneity of their genuine
reverence for what had been done there. They weren't there for some kind of loaf, they were they because they thought it was part of the, I guess, understanding of what it was to be an Australian. To go there and to find something out about it and I did of course try to make the point in the speech that I delivered at Lone Pine that today's young people are just as capable of those deeds as were the young people of earlier generations.
JOURNALIST:
Did you have some assistance with drafting of your speech? And secondly what's wrong with the teaching history and how should we fix it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't normally answer questions on the internal processes of my office, about the preparation of anything. As to the teaching of history, I think we went through a stage where we started teaching the, perhaps a little too much, too much of an emphasis on issues and rather than on exactly what happened. So that you can get situations where some people can come out of the education system having not been taught anything at all
about what led up to Federation, or World War I or World War II.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think there's any bearing . . .
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think there's been a recovery. And I am very pleased to note that despite our political differences the New South Wales' Premier and I seem to have the same view on this subject. I think you've got quite sound views on the teaching of history and he should be encouraged to implement them.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you've said you wanted to go to Gallipoli for a long time. Aside from the issue of the other people who were there, what was it like for you to be there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very moving, it was, it had a special feel in the sense that you, I know it sounds corny to say it, but you felt as though it was as much part of Australia as the block of land on which 19 Milner Crescent, Wollstonecraft is built. And I think that was, and that was the same feeling I had when I first went to the Somme, that I felt as though I had come home to a part of Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you think Paris is the second best city in the world after
Sydney?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think Paris is architecturally the most beautiful city in the world. I think taking a broader view the, scenically and all those other things, I think Sydney is far and away the most beautiful city in the world. But architecturally Paris is a wonderful place.
JOURNALIST:
Is it a case that architecture [inaudible]
JOURNALIST:
Very good answer.
JOURNALIST:
Is it a matter of concern to you that there is a point of consensus between you and Mr Keating.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I mean he can be right on some things, yes.
[ends]