Subjects: bilateral meeting and relations; South Pacific issues; immigration issues; defence; Sydney Olympic Games
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
The Prime Minister and I, as in the past, have had a very friendly and useful discussion. We’ve covered the I think reasonable gamut of the bilateral relationship. We’ve noted in relation to social security agreement that there will be discussions commencing soon. It’s not an easy issue and there’s goodwill on both sides to try and reach a sensible outcome.
In relation to defence matters the level of defence spending by New Zealand of course is a matter for New Zealand and the New Zealand Government to determine. I’ve briefed the Prime Minister in some detail about our upcoming white paper, the intention of the Australian government to increase defence spending, and that there’ll be some detailing of that in the white paper which is likely to come out before Christmas.
We’ve reviewed the progress of the peace operation in East Timor. We both remain very concerned about militia activity and would like as much pressure to be placed upon the militias to curtail their activity and abandon their hostility to people in both East and West Timor and I’ve indicated that the Australian forces are likely to be there for some time yet.
In relation to the region generally we’re both viewing the upcoming Pacific Forum meeting as one of the more important forum meetings that’s taken place over the last decade. I think I can fairly say that the bilateral relationship with New Zealand is in very good shape. The regular contacts between the Prime Minister and myself are extremely valuable and we’ll see each other again at the forum meeting and then at APEC which is in Brunei, and of course next year I’m scheduled to pay a visit to New Zealand in accordance with our normal pattern of visits. But I always welcome visits to this country by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The relationship between our two countries is very long standing and very close and very important to the Australian government.
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
We have had a good discussion. We spent a lot of time on the Indonesia/East Timor issues. I think we both agree that there’s likely to need to be a be a commitment for some time yet to come. New Zealand will need to make a decision before Christmas on just how big a commitment we can continue to put into Timor. But I’ve indicated to Mr Howard that there is very good support in New Zealand for the work the New Zealand armed forces are doing in Timor and there’s good support at government level. So we now have to look at how practical it is to keep these engagements going at the present level or at a somewhat reduced level. But certainly there’s goodwill to the operation. We’ve agreed that the Pacific Island Forum meeting is an important one following on the forum foreign ministers meeting in APIA a few weeks ago which made some progress in setting some conditionality around the participation of the forum where countries go off the rails as Fiji did, it does create problems. The Commonwealth recognises that and I think the APIA declaration was the first sign that the South Pacific Forum may recognise that as well. So it has been a useful discussion and it is one of six discussions we will have had this year.
JOURNALIST:
….have you discussed the issue of New Zealand’s amnesty for overstayers?
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
Yes we’ve touched on that. I’ve said to Mr Howard that we would be genuinely very surprised if it led to any increased exposure for Australia from migration from New Zealand. Obviously we’d be rather interested in the migration from New Zealand to Australia slowing down in any case but we don’t believe that this transitional arrangement is likely to see a surge in migration to Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister Howard, are you satisfied with that?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Well, I’ve no reason not to be satisfied with it. I think the New Zealand Prime Minister would have a better idea than anybody else as to whether or not there’s going to be a surge. Our position is that if there’s no surge there’s no issue. Obviously if there is a surge well we just will have to have a look at that. I don’t to sound in any way alarmist or pre-emptive but we just have to look at the consequences of that and that was essentially what I’d indicated to the Prime Minister when I saw her in New York and she was kind enough to inform me in advance of what New Zealand was going to do and that’s the position that’s been taken by the Australian government. But obviously if there’s no surge there’s no issue.
JOURNALIST:
You held a meeting yesterday with Jenny Shipley and she says that you have real concerns about immigration…..
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
I’m not going to get into any debates between the New Zealand Prime Minister and the New Zealand Opposition Leader. You know that’s not appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
You spoke of consequences. If there was a surge…..
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Did I use the word “consequences”?
JOURNALIST:
Twice, I think
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Did I. Well but it’s hypothetical.
JOURNALIST:
Yes I know that, I know that.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
I don’t deal in hypothesis. I’ve indicated to you that the New Zealand Prime Minister believes there will be no surge and if there is no surge there’s no issue.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, are you satisfied with New Zealand’s defence commitments in the South Pacific?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Well my view about New Zealand defence commitments is that it’s a matter for New Zealand.
JOURNALIST:
Were there any discussions regarding a common currency?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Yes we talked about the subject. Our position is that we’re not pushing it. We don’t take the view that it’s something that has to happen. If over the fullness of time the two countries think it’s desirable to have a discussion about it they will. But these things come up from time to time. They ought to be looked at in an objective logical fashion. In the end what defines countries of course is domestic economic performance and commitment and the two countries both recognise that and the two governments do. But it’s not something that Australia will be seeking to make the running on.
JOURNALIST:
….. over New Zealand’s commitment to the South pacific regarding defence?
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
I don’t think anyone doubts New Zealand’s commitments. The government itself has just substantially increased its spending on defence with the decision to purchase very modern 21st century equipment for the New Zealand Army and we haven’t finished yet. We’re making a very substantial purchase of Army personnel carriers, very substantial purchase of new radio equipment. We still have land rovers to come and quite a range of other ancillary equipment.
We’ve put that as the first priority because the New Zealand Army has been really the poor relation in terms of military spending in New Zealand for quite some time and yet it’s obvious that it bears the brunt of the New Zealand overseas deployment and commitment to others. So that’s where the priority is in the first instance.
Apart from that we are working through an orderly process of defence purchasing. We’ve got decisions to make about the transport ship the Charles Upham as to whether it is replaced or upgraded. We will have expenditure in the coming decade of Hercules or Iriquois. There are a lot of big ticket items for a small country- we are only 3.8 million. And as I said when I last came to Australia a country with 3.8 million with the cost of military technology these days has to take a hard cold look at the range of capabilities.
That’s what we’re doing but we will not take it from anyone that New Zealand doesn’t meet its commitments. New Zealand does meets its commitments and in full and I might say that at no time has Mr Howard or any previous Australian Prime Minister ever indicated that New Zealand did otherwise.
JOURNALIST:
So was there any talk about the decision not to go ahead with the Orion upgrade?
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
Not specifically.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
That issue was not specifically discussed, no.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any move…
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Are you talking to me?
JOURNALIST:
Yes. Is there any move to change the nature of the relationship between the two countries in light of South Pacific security issues?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
No we didn’t. We think the general cast of the relationship is very good and there’s certainly no desire to change. No I would say the relationship is in very good shape and doesn’t really need any fundamental change. We’ll disagree on certain issues but broadly speaking Australia and New Zealand have a lot of common interest. We have a common interest in a stable region. We have a common interest in open, robust political debate within our two societies because we’re both very long standing mature democracies.
JOURNALIST:
Would approach will both nations be taking into the South Pacific Forum to re-establish regional security?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Well we’re not going in there sort of with a joint brief to tell the others what to do - that’s not the Pacific way, that’s the way not to get understanding and cooperation. For Australia’s part we will be arguing the importance of openness and transparency and democracy. Both of us were very critical of what happened in Fiji and we remain critical. And I think it’s very important that all countries in the region in the forum area practice in their different ways those principles of transparency, openness and democracy.
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
I think it’s fair to say there’s been a very close level of coordination between Australia and New Zealand this year on the Pacific crises both in the Solomons and in Fiji - an enormous amount of interaction between foreign ministers and foreign ministries. We’ve worked very closely together trying to get peace talks effective in the Solomons. I know that there’s some to take place in Australian territory soon. We’ve had vessels in the Solomons helping, you’ve had vessels in the Solomons helping. It has been closely coordinated and I think overall a model of how Australia and New Zealand can work together on a regional security issue.
JOURNALIST:
Is there an argument for a more robust approach?
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
I think we’ve been pretty robust!
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
What do you mean by a more robust approach? Do you want a few more gunboats or something? I mean you know these things are - you need a combination of responses but most importantly of all you have to show an ongoing interest in the commitment to region and to be good friends of countries as Australia has constantly been of a country like Papua New Guinea and as New Zealand has been with many of the island states in the Pacific region. And that in the long run is what Australia and New Zealand can best do to help the other Pacific countries. One more question I think.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard can I just return quickly to the issue of over stayers?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Of which?
JOURNALIST:
Of over stayers.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Over stayers, yes. In which country?
JOURNALIST:
In New Zealand.
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
There’s a few here too you know.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
That’s why I sought clarification, yes.
JOURNALIST:
Is there any sense that Australia is going to review the trans Tasman travel arrangements?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
I indicated to you before that we don’t expect, if what the Prime Minister said is the case, well there’s absolutely no issue. I mean we don’t wish to review that arrangement. Clearly New Zealand has taken an important decision in relation to over stayers and the New Zealand Government extrapolates from that, that there’s going to be no great surge coming to Australia if that turns out to be the case and I have no reason to doubt the assessment made by the Prime Minister then there’s no issue. And I don’t care to get into hypothesising about what the situation might be if there were an issue.
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
Can I just stress that the New Zealand Government takes a very dim view of over staying. As of 1 October new law comes into effect in New Zealand. That law says- you overstay your permit by forty-two days or more and you may be deported without appeal. It is a very draconian measure.
Now in the lead up to that what we have decided to do is take a transitional measure to enable people who come under a well settled criteria to apply for regularisation. It is anticipated that that could be somewhere between 5,700 and 7,700 people. It is not a great number by virtue of the fact that they would be considered well settled we actually consider it rather less likely that they would be prone to hot foot it across the Tasman. So I have said in good faith to Mr Howard that I will genuinely be surprised if it led to any significantly increased exposure.
I can fully understand Australia having an interest in New Zealand’s immigration procedures because if we have sloppy borders it effects Australia. We do not intend to have sloppy borders. We are cracking down on overstaying. I think I can say that the new procedures we have adopted are considerably harsher than any that apply in Australia and we want to get on top of the problem. Overstaying is a crime in New Zealand. We do not welcome it, we do not condone it. This is a one off measure as we are in transition to something a lot tougher.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Can I just conclude by making the observation that the new measure that is coming into operation in New Zealand is something of a response, perhaps unintentionally to those in Australia who say that the immigration approach adopted to overstaying and illegal immigration and the like by the Australian Government is unduly harsh. I think it drives home the point that we have sought to make that many of the external and domestic critics of Australian immigration policy over the last several years and particularly in the last twelve months are way out of I think out of understanding in line with sentiment in this country and in New Zealand. In the end every country has to maintain the integrity of its immigration policy. It has a right to decide who will come to its country. It has a right to lay down rules and it has a right to enforce those rules. And if it gives clear notice then it can hardly be accused of acting in an inhumane fashion. Thank you.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard are you concerned that the Sydney Games are only going to be remembered for the drugs debacle.
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
I think they’ll be remembered for the fantastic success of Australian athletes myself.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Well I wouldn’t dissent from that but can I say that the Sydney Games will be remembered for the stunning success they have been. And that is about the only discordant question I’ve had about the Sydney Games.
JOURNALIST:
But we’ve had a record number of people testing positive to drugs.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Well I mean that’s perhaps a sign…
PRIME MINISTER CLARK:
Probably a record number of competitors.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Well perhaps a record number of competitors and a sign that the system is working. I think the Games are an enormous tribute most importantly of all to the people of Australia and their warm heartedness and their generosity of spirit towards visitors to this country. And I am as Prime Minister of Australia immensely proud of the way in which the Australian people have opened their hearts and opened this country to people from around the world. I think it’s a fantastic advertisement for our country. Thank you.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard are you pleased we’ve broken our record gold medal tally, Australia beating the Melbourne tally?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Did you see Jane Saville’s disqualification from the walk?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD:
No I was having a discussion with the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea when that was going on. I have spent all of today in discussions. And I heard about it. I make no comment. I’m sorry for her but I make no other comment.
[ends]