PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, SYDNEY TOWN HALL
JUNE 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the question of the Chinese
students, there's some doubt about whether the full 20,000
will be able to stay and what status they will have.
PM: Well let me say this. I have been amazed, if I can put
it that way, by the media in this last week. I see that I
have changed my mind, retreated. There's been no change in
my position, no retreat. There seems to be a complete
incapacity to understand the very simple propositions which
I put and some distinctions which I made. Now let me make
it clear. What I said was something that should not have
surprised anyone because I'd been saying it for 12 months.
And that is that in regard to those people that had come
here pre-Tienanmen that there were special circumstances
that applied to them and there would be a special category.
The details of that of course I had in some sense talked
about with Mr Hand before I made any public comment. He is
preparing a submission for Cabinet on the basis of the
discussions that we had, and the details of how we'll work
out that special category will be considered and determined
by Cabinet. But there will be, as there must be, and as
I've made quite clear over a period of 12 months, special
consideration as to how you deal with the problems of those
people. For those who came after that I've made it clear,
as will be the case, that the presumption will be that those
people will return to China. Now I noticed that in the
process some people seemed to have had a difficulty in
making the distinction between that and what I had to say in
regard to what in shorthand terms are called the Cambodian
boat people. Now obviously I understood, and do understand,
involved in what I said, that for those who get here,
those who've arrived, there are legal processes to which
they are entitled. And to be technical about it that's the
DORS, the Determination of Refugee Status, DORS. And people
get here whom are able to use those processes to determine
by definition whether they have refugee status in the terms
under our legislation, and internationally recognised, which
would enable them to qualify for residency here under the
refugee category. What I was trying to make quite clear and
which I repeat again is that as far as I and the Government
are concerned there needn't be some expectation that there
is simply a great open door here for any people who want to
come. People are saying oh but look at the difficulties
they encounter in getting here. Sure, but where do we draw
the line? Say two hundred people have Come, they've
encountered some difficulties. Alright, they get here.
what if it's two hundred thousand, two million? It's got
nothing to do with whether they are Cambodians, whether they
are Irish, Greek, Italian. The fact is that I am making it
quite clear as far as this Government is concerned that we
as a sovereign country will determine our immigration policy
and its content, its size. And let no-one think that we're
just going to stand idly by and allow others by their
autonomous action which reflect some perhaps unhappiness
with the circumstances in which they find themselves in
their own country, that those people are going to determine
our immigration policy. That's not going to happen. Now
those things I made quite clear in my comments last week.
There was no equivocation about them. They were
intellectually integrated, politically integrated and
intellectually and politically proper. if people haven't
been able to understand it don't accuse me of some changing.
There has been no change. What I say now is precisely what
I've said before.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, why did you bypass Cabinet when you
were making that decision?
PM: It's not a question of bypassing cabinet. As I've just
indicated, I had detailed discussions with the Minister
before I made the observation that I did. I've been Prime
minister for seven years. On many occasions where there is
a matter of public concern and interest 1I with the
responsibility I have as Prime Minister, have made it clear
what T believe the Government's position would be. And I am
quite certain that the Government's position will be as I
have indicated. Now as to certain details, particularly as
to the details of how we work out the special category for
those Chinese that were here prior to Tienanmen, then those
will be a matter of detailed discussion and determination by
Cabinet. JOURNALIST: Mr Wellington Lee and some other people in the
Asian community have said that some of the students, the
Chinese students, don't deserve to stay here.
PM: Yes, well Mr Wellington Lee over the years has made
observations which don't always emanate from his concern
with matters of immigration as such. I mean he has his
political sympathies and positions and if he sees an
opportunity to attack the Government he's been prepared to
do it over the years. And that's good on you Wellington
that's part of this democracy and I welcome that. But I
don't take any particular notice of Wellington Lee. I
understand what the realities are. And they are, they've
not only been recognised in this country, but it defies
description that anyone should suggest that in regard to
people who were here before Tienanmen that you don't have to
have some special considerations as to how you deal with
that. We will, and as I say the details will be worked out
in discussion with my Cabinet colleagues.
JOURNALIST: Will you take into consideration their skill
level, their educational level?
PM: As I say, the details of how these things are taken
into account are properly for decision. The important thing
that I've done is to make clear that this country will
compassionately and properly understand that there are
special considerations that have to be given to that group
of people.
JOURNALIST: You must have been disappointed though that
your decision sort of seemed to unveil a bitter new
dimension to the Asian immigration debate.
PM: Well I don't think it did. it's very interesting.
What it did unveil was a lack of capacity on the part of
many people writing in the media to understand fairly simple
facts. But I'm used to that after seven years. I don't get
terribly worried about that. one has an educational role in
these matters. I think that in regard to the issue itself
that it would be fair to say that people did, generally
speaking, including those who I think misunderstood what I
was saying, certainly none of the people who've written in
the media I think, nor Australians generally, have taken the
view that we shouldn't have a compassionate attitude on
these matters. I haven't felt that that view has come
through strongly.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what do think of Mr Loosley's
plan to change preselection rules in the State?
PM: I think that is a matter predominantly for discussion
here within the State branch of NSW.
JOURNALIST: Ira it a good idea? Bob Hogg is proposing a
similar change nationally.
PM: I think it's a good idea that these matters should be
discussed within the Party.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you mentioned the Budget in your
speech and there has been a figure floating around that
you're going to make cuts of $ 1.6 billion to the
Commonwealth Budget in the forthcoming Budget. Is that
figure right?
PMt That's a good try Amanda. A very very good try. You
know that in this funny period that we're getting into now
in the pre-Budget that there are all sorts of figures and
ideas floating around. Now that's good, it's part of the
process of public debate and democracy. But these things
will be determined in the now awful period that's coming up
of weeks and weeks in that Expenditure Review Committee.
All I will say is this, that there will be decisions which
will involve reductions in Commonwealth expenditure.
Because that is necessary if we're going to meet the task
that we have. And that is to ensure in the interests of
this country that in the period ahead there be a position
where production is greater than demand. Because that is
necessary to attack the twin problems of our external
account and of inflationary pressures. So we'll play our
part in Commonwealth fiscal policy and of course if we also
want the States to be involved in some expenditure restraint
we'll have to show sorne ourselves.
JOURNALIST: Mr Greiner said that on the area of
microeconomic reform his government has done more than most
and he's asking for some tax rebate powers.
PM: Yes well if you read all that Mr Greiner has said over
the months and the years it makes very interesting reading.
He's the one who said at times, perhaps most vociferously,
that there's a need for restraint by the States. Then when
you look at what's happened in NSW the performance doesn't
quite match the rhetoric. But I'm not here to engage in a
slanging match with Mr Greiner, as attractive as that may
appear to be. I mean I hope that Nick Greiner and all the
state Premiers, irrespective of their political persuasion,
are going to accept that we all, all of us, have a
responsibility to match as politicians, and as decisionmakers,
the economic challenges confronting this country.
That involves some hard decisions on the part of all of us.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in terms of the public debate
process of democracy, is it a wise move to throw a
television news crew out of the Conference?
PM: That's a matter for the decision of the conference.
All I can say is that every other television station seemed
to think it was appropriate to meet the requirements of the
conference. That's their business.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Mr Howe seems to be
foreshadowing changes, possible changes to Medicare. How
far can those changes go?
PM: I don't put specific limits on that. I have a position
where in Brian Howe I have a Minister of outstanding
competence, great track record in the broad area of social
issues. His reforms as Minister for Social Security were
historic. He blended thid great capacity for compassion and
targetting for eliminating unnecessary expenditure but while
ensuring that those in need were better looked after. A
great record there and he seems to be bringing precisely
those characteristics and qualities to the discharge of his
new Ministry. I am quite confident, knowing Brian as I do,
that he will be having a quite wide-ranging examination of
this area and be bringing to Cabinet proposals, which I
don't know the detail of yet as I'm talking, but which will
be characterised by those considerations. That is to
eliminate waste if that can possibly be done to make for
better targetting but to ensure that those who need
protection get it.
JOURNALIST: Are we talking about modifying or rebuilding
Medicare?
PM: I'm not making any positions about it because I want to
have further discussions with the Minister and we'll want to
see what his proposals are. But it will ensure that
whatever is done you can rest assured that the
characteristics of Medicare will stay. And that is that for
the people of Australia they will have universality and they
will have equity.
JOURNALIST: Is Mr Cameron as bad a pollster as Mr Loosley
seems to think he is?
PM: Now this is almost sub judice.
ends