PM Transcripts

A,-6 TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH HON GERRY HAND,
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATI7ON, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC
AFFAIRS, PARLIAMENT HOUSE 27 JUNE 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
PM: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll ask Gerry to speak to the three press releases first, and
I'll have something to say about the ERG decision, then we'll be open to questions on
the immigration matters. And then after that I'll be available for any questions you
have on any other matters.
HAND: First of all let me say that there were discussions around three topics
yesterday in Cabinet. One was the program for the coming year, the question of the
PRC nationals and changes to the way in which we'll address the question of the
refugee and humanitarian cases in the future.
On the question of the program, last year you'll recall the upper planning level was for
140,000. This year it will be 126,000. The categories are in the sets of the Family
Migration 64,000; the Skilled igration 50,000; Humitarian component 11,000; and
the Special Eligibility category 1,000. Total 126,000.
The changes to the refugee humanitarian procedures brought about quite a deal of
discussion in the Cabinet because they seek to, for the first time, bring under control
what is a growing area. That is people who arrive in Australia and seek to change
residence by claiming humanitarian or refugee status. Now, we're one of the last
countries to be affected by this and it is quite a dramatic blowout in terms of going
from one or two years waiting to in excess of six and rising rapidly, that is the time
which people would have to wait to be processed.
So we're doing a number of things. Firstly we're putting the criteria, if you like, or the
way in which people are assessed, into legislation. We'll be rejigging the DORS
process so it's faster and quicker and therefore people aren't left waiting as long. Also
the question of natural justice will be built into the process so that people are assured
of getting their rights fully addressed.
This will enable us to do a number of things. Firstly, we'll be able to put people into a
holding line, if you like, or queue of four years instead of automatically getting
permanent residency which they do now. They'll be assessed and if they're found to
be eligible for refugee status that will be granted. But the nexus between it and
permanent residency will be broken and people will be given a temporary entry permit
which they will hold for four years. At the end of that four year period they will be
able to seek permanent residency and it will be granted on the basis of a position
being found in the formal intake for that year.
In other words, no more add-ons or blowouts, a controlled approach, a disciplined
approach to the whole program. Also whilst they're in that four year period they can
be taken into account as the calculations are made when you examie the range of
issues do when you're reaching the intake for that year. So in terms of the broader
range of issues be addressed, they will become a factor in terms of the cost etc.

So two things one is that it for the first time enables us to control the flow of people
onshore into the program and secondly it doesn't give them an advantage over people
offshore. In other words you can have people in a camp who are part of a three year
intake program, or camp clearance program, who have to wait. And if you're one of
the people in the third year you can understand them getting a bit upset with
somebody who happens to land in Australia and going ahead of them in the queue. So
it puts them into a queuing situation but in a balanced and orderly way.
The third area that we discussed which is linked to the asylum processes I've just
addressed is the question of the PRC students. Thecy will be granted a four year
temporary entry permit. It will be in a special PRC category. They are not being
assessed for asylum or in terms of refugee or humanitarian grounds. They will be
given a special category of their own. This is the pre-June 20 group. T'hey will at
the end of that four year period be able to again seek permanent residence. That will
be granted if a position is available to them in the program as determined by the
Government at that time.
So again, they will be given certain rights in terms of family reunion as will the
asylum people. That is spouse and dependent children which I point out is available
to people who are here for over twelve months now studying or in a work situation.
So that's nothing new. That is a continuation of what exists. Also the Finance
Minister and myself will be reporting back to Cabinet very shortly on the other
programs that they'll have access to.
PM: Thanks very much Gerry. In regard to the latter matter, the PRC nationals, I
would obviously want to make some observations. Let me say at the outset that I'm
obviously delighted with the decision which incorporates all the elements which I
have consistently regarded as important in this matter. And may I say most
particularly the decision reflects the original discussions that Gerry Hand and I had,
and reflects the submission which he took to the Cabinet.
It needs to be said that it's not a simple thing to manage an issue of this kind in a way
which is at the one time both humane and compassionate on the one hand, as it must
be, and on the other is one which enables a suitable control and a practical
administration of the issue. But I think that the Government has squarely faced this
issue on the basis of the submission which Gerry brought to it and has approached the
tragic events of last June in China and as far as has been reflected in this country in a
way which gives a solution. It is on the one hand compassionate, meeting our
humanitarian obligations, but on the other it gives the capacity to maintain control
over the size and the structure of Australia's immigration program.
As far as the humanitarian asecs are concerned, the decision shows an appropriate
sensitivity to the very difficult plight in which Chinese students and others in
Australia at the time of Tienanmen found themselves. It fully confirms the
undertakings that I have previously given publicly that no such Chinese national
would be required to return to China against their will. Importantly it gives these
people time, as they should be given, time to assess the situation in China before
taking decisions about where their long term future lies.
Now hope, and I've consistently expressed this hope, and I believe that most of the
Chinese themselves hope, that the years ahead will see a turn for the better in China.
Accordingly, the decisions that we've taken on the basis of the submission that Gerry
brought to Cabinet, it gives the people concerned every reason for a sense of security
without forcing them to commit themselves to make at this point an irrevocable
decision about their future.

So that's as far as the humanitarian obligations that we have. As far as the element of
control is concerned, as Gerry has pointed out and as you'll see from the decision, this
is achieved by the concept of the special category for four years, and after which time
the Governiment of the day can make appropriate decisions then about whether to
extend the temporary residence for those who wish to stay or whether to grant
permanent residency. And it creates the capacity for gearing the rate at which
permanent residence is provided to the rate at which places become available under
the program.
Let me say that no-one, neither Gerry nor myself nor anyone in the Cabinet, nor
anyone else for that matter, can be definitive about the number of people in the special
category who will choose to stay. It's impossible to be definitive about that. . But
expressing my own belief, it is this. That I think that many of those, very many of
those, will choose to return to China, given the strength of attachment of the homeland
which exists. But regardless of that, the decision gives us a fully workable framework
in which to manage the situation. And it's relevant to note that in respect of the pre-
June 20 category I think the latest count you've got Gerry, in your Department, of
those in that category who have returned is now 1400. There are actually 1400 who
have returned who were in that pre-June 20 group.
The final point I'd make is that obviously the decision also draws the distinction
which I have consistently said should be drawn between those who were here before
the 20th of June and the later arrivals. I might say finally that the decision that we've
taken in this regard is fully consistent with our broader foreign policy posture towards
China. That policy doesn't in any way neglect or disregard the changed situation in
China since the events of last June. But rather it accepts the requirement upon us to
respond to the impact of those events. At the same time, as you know, our policy is
one which hopes for an improvement in the situation in China and I repeat now that
my Government will do all that we can to try and work for an improvement of that
relationship in the years ahead.
So as someone who's had a longstanding commitment to sound policy in this whole
area of our relations with China and in the area of immigration, I repeat that I believe
that the decision which has been made, and based upon the submission which Gerry
brought to the Cabinet, is a most sensible and sensitive response to a complex and
difficult situation. I take this opportunity of thanking Gerry Hand for the cooperation
that we've had in this matter and which has been reflected in the decision taken by the
Cabinet yesterday.
JOURNALIST: On the matter of the Chinese students, this statement seems to say
quite clearly that if the Government is confident the situation in China is such that
human rights are no longer duly at risk then these people won't get permanent
residency. Is that so?
PM: That's a consideration that we make clear will affect the decision that we take.
But that is also, as you will appreciate Laurie, in the same statement, that if in those
circumstances people still want to say that they believe that they are at risk then they
will not be forced to return. But as Gerry has pointed out in his observations and as
the decision points out, that will then be relevant obviously to the question of whether
they would get permanent status.
JOURNALIST: But you say quite clearly whether these nationals in the special
category who wish to stay beyond the four years permanent residence will depend
upon conditions then prevailing in China. It seems to mean only one thing if the
Government thinks the position is alright they don't get permanent residency. Isn't
that so?

PM: We're making that quite clear. What I'm saying is it's two things. I've said
consistently throughout that what the position is in China will be a relevant
consideration. I've also said
JOURNALIST: consideration in that sentence.
PM: But it's not a consideration as to whether they will be forced to go back. If they
make a judgement against our judgement, if they make a judgement and put that their
assessment is that they would be at risk, then what we are saying is, alright you make
that judgement, we will not force you to go back and in those circumstances there'd
be no expectation that you would get permanent residence. You wouldn't.
JOURNALIST: guaranteed then that they can stay Politicians, even yourself,
have been known to break the odd promise. What guarantee have they got?
PM: Well Laurie, you are battling indeed my friend to try and continue that which
doesn't exist, a conflict or a contradiction between any part of the decisions that have
been announced yesterday or the elements of which I referred to before. At all points
the question of the situation in China has been regarded as relevant.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Just aminute. Let me finish the answer to the question will you. The situation
in China has been regarded at all times. That is referred to again here. At no point,
including my first statement or at any subsequent point, did I say that these people
would be getting immediate permanent residence. There is an assumption, an
assumption made by some that that was said or that was intended. It was not said nor
was it intended. The intention that there has been, and which is reflected in the
decision of the Cabinet is this, that there is a special category of these people who
came here before the 20th of June. That has been endorsed. That has meant now that
these people are not required to make any decision now, commit themselves, for four
years, in the hope, which has been a consistent hope, that by that time the
circumstances will have changed in a way which would make the return of these
people to China a safe exercise. But they are given that time. They are not required
to commit themselves now. That would've been the most inhumane thing to do to say
you are going to be required in some immediate sense to make a judgement of
commitment about whether you want to break your ties or not. So they have four
years. And in that period it is our hope, and I would judge the hope of the great
majority of these people, that the situation in China will change to the point at which
there should be no risk about their return. And in those circumstances the question of
permanent residence is an irrelevancy. There was never any intention when these
people came that they were coming here to be permanent residents. That was not their
intention, nor ours. But in the situation created by the events of June of last year we
had to deal with that. Not to create a certainty of permanent residency but to create
for them a certainty now that they would not have to commit themselves to making a
judgement about this issue premature. And that's been done. What we are saying still
is if even against the judgement that we make at that point that there is no risk, if they
make an alternative judgement then they won't be getting permanent residency here
but they will not be returned against their will. Now those things are crystal clear,
have been and remain so.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke that it won't be in legislation and governments can
change and Prime Ministers can change
PM: Of course Prime Ministers can change. I mean, wihrespect, don't be ridiculous.
I can't, in regard to this matter, or any other, I can't bind future governments, can't
bind future governments. What you can do now as a responsible and compassionate
government is to lay down a framework which you believe will recommend itself to

the government of the day. I would regard it as extremely unlikely that any
government four years hence would take a different view. That is, if the situation
were then that the judgement were that it would be a risk situation for people to
return, I think they would make the judgement that we do now, that they should be
granted permanent residence but the timing of the permanency, as has been pointed
out, to be fitted into the program. Equally, I would regard it as very unlikely that any
future government, if the situation were that the judgement were made that the
situation in China was not such as to put a returnee at risk, that any government then
would say well ok, no permanent residence but if you say after this period of time you
still believe you're at risk and you don't want to return, alright you can stay but no
permanent residence. Now, I can't say that that will be the position of the
Government in four years time or in ten years time on this matter or on any other what
the position will be. But the responsibility of the Government today is to make
decisions relevant today and which you think would be an appropriate basis for
decision making four years hence. That's what we've done.
JOURNALIST: postponing your decision.
PM: I don't you're trying very hard to create an issue that isn't there. What has been
made clear, which for one reason or another you don't want to accept, is this. That we
have said there ought to be a period of time set aside within which you don't require
these people prematurely to make a decision. Now why you don't want to understand
or accept it I don't know but it's perfectly clear. It would be wrong in the interests of
these people to say we require you now to make a decision. The humane thing is to
say look we will give you a period here in which you don't need to make a decision
that will irrevocably commit yourself on the basis of an attitude that you have now
towards a regime or the condition in your country. It is relevant to say well here is a
period, we've picked on four years, which seems a reasonable period of time, to say
alright you have security here, you have security here, you don't need to commit
yourself in that period. At that point it's our hope, and I would suggest the
overwhelming hope, the hope of the overwhelming number of those people, that the
situation will be such that they can return without risk. It would be quite improper, it
would be quite improper, and I don't think anyone has questioned this despite your
incapacity to understand it at the moment, no-one has questioned, I think, the concept
that there should be some period within which they are not forced to make a decision.
That has been at the basis of the discussion that Gerry and I had at the beginning of
this, it's been at the basis of all that I've said and it's at the basis of the decision made
by the Cabinet.
JOURNALIST: Government's decided to bring out 114,000 people who are
perfectly safe in their own countries
PM: Has decided to bring out what?
JOURNALIST: 114,000 people who are perfectly safe in their own countries.
PM: What's this 114,000?
JOURNALIST: 50,000 skilled migrants and 64,000 family reunion administrative
difficulties and defer decisions
PM: subtracting the humanitarian from the The figure is 124,000.
HAND: 126,000.
PM: 126,000.

JOURNALIST: Bringing out 114,000 people who are perfectly safe in their own
countries and setting up these difficulties and these administrative blocks for people
who arc not safe in their own countries.
HAND: No that's not true.
PM: It's simply not true.
HAND: Not true at all. All people who come to our shores here have the right to
seek refuge under the DORS program, and that's not being tampered with. What
we're in fact doing is seeking to improve the servicing of those people by streamlining
and improving, or lessening the time they have to wait where they are unable to get
very much assistance at all. So quite the opposite is the case. We're in fact doing
what we can to improve that and to bring them into the system and, well, if you like,
make their position more clearer, quicker. So I don't think your question is right. I
think we're doing exactly the opposite to what you're suggesting.
JOURNALIST: The fact remains though that you haven't entirely removed the
uncertainty for the Chinese students.
HAND: There's a good could I just something before Bob talks. Look, a large
number of the Chinese student delegations that came to see me, there was a very
strong view put that they shouldn't be put in a position of being made to choose
permanency. Now you've got to understand that. So we're not doing these people a
wrong at all. People quite clearly came to me here in this building and said we don't
want to be put in a position of permanency, we'd like an extension of the time we're
allowed to stay here because some of us here in this room want to in fact return home,
quickly. And we don't want to have to make a choice because that will further
jeopardise us. So what we've tried to do is marry up a whole range of views in the
fairest possible way. I think if you stand back and look at what we've done here there
is obviously a right of Government to assess things in four years time and there's a
right of the individual as it also says here to make their assessment as to what they
choose to do. It's the individual's right that we're trying to protect. I mean, every
editorial in the country said these people had to be looked after, and what we've tried
to do in the fairest possible way is meet those sorts of community demands over a
long period of time.
PM: L-et me make the point. You say we haven't removed the uncertainty. Let me
make this point
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Just me make it quite clear that at no point did I or Gerry or anyone speaking for
the Government on this issue over recent weeks say that they were going to be given
immediate permanent residence. I mean shake your head. Read it through and
see that was never never said. Now for people then to say that an uncertainty was
created on the expectation that that was their interpretation, what was intended that
immediate permanent residence was going to be given, we can't be responsible for that
because it was never said and never intended. And as Gerry has said now, in terms of
people that have come and spoken to him and what any intelligent analysis would lead
you to conclude, is that overwhelmingly these people who didn't come to Australia to
become permanent residents they came here for a limited purpose, to go back to
China then obviously what they will want is a situation within which they have the
security of being here, not being forced back, within which they don't have to make
some premature decision, some permature decision which could cut off their ties with
their homeland. And that's precisely what's been given. So if you talk about
uncertainty then there is no uncertainty being created by anything that we've said.
Now as to the future, we have created a framework within which they know that if the

situation in China has not changed then that they would still have that at-risk
situation. Then the decision has been made that they will gt permanency, the timing
of which, as Gerry has said and the decision points out, wUil be in terms of fitting into
the program. But they also have the certainty, that even if against the judgement of
the Government of the time, that what is being said now is that they should not be
returned against their will.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: There is no greater certainties which they can either expect have been given in
any other country in the world or which could be responsibly given by this
Government.
JOURNALIST: Should a student want to stay in Australia after four years but the
situation in China has improved, according to the first paragraph he wouldn't have to
go back, but according to the second paragraph that would be a consideration on his
being allowed to remain.
PM: Really, do you not understand something that's perfectly What would then be
determined, if he says against the judgement that it is safe to go back, is ok, what has
been clearly said now, you can stay but it would relate to the question of permanency
or temporary residence. He wouldn't be getting, he would not have any expectation of
being granted permanent residence in that situation. And that's some
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I have other interpretations Laurie.
JOURNALIST: I just seek clarification. You say none of these people will be
forced to go back to China against their will. Your press statement says quite clearly
they will only get permanent residence if the Government, the Australian Government
decides in four years the Peking Government is not on the nose. Now doesn't that
create a situation where you have people who are allowed to stay here permanently,
but they don't get permanent residence and isn't that absurd?
PM: It's not absurd because we say, and have said all along, that no person will be
forced to be returned against their will. Because you could have a situation which I
think you could easily contemplate where the general judgement was made, general
judgemnent was made that it was safe to return, that the change was such that people
returning wouldn't be at risk. We believe you could have a situation where an
individual could say well you might say that about the situation in China generally,
but I'm telling you, I'm telling you that it's my judgement that because of some
circumstance back there in the part where I come from, I could be at risk. Now we're
simply saying if you've got that situation we're going to be saying alright, we're not
going to return you against your will, not going to return you against your will, if
that's your judgement, but be it clear in those circumstances you will not get the status
of permanent residency in this country. You'll get a rollover of a temporary, a
reissuing of your temporary permit.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if after four years
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: If after four years the Government, Australian Government
determines that Peking is back on the right track and conditions are suitable for people
to return, what will happen to dependent spouses and children of the Chinese people
who come here four year period. What will be their status?

PM: Well, that will be
HAND: The same as the individual concerned.
PM: Yes.
HAND: And they'll come in the same way, they join their spouse here in the same
way, in the same they have the same standing.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on the same issue, but a slightly different tack, is it
consistent to say that Chinese students will be given a discretion to decide at the end
of the four year period whether they go back or not, at the same time as changes be
made to the Migration Act, an application of the UN definition of refugees. two
different types of refugees one group gets to make their own choice whether they go
back or not, another group tougher rules on their..
PM: We've said in respect of the pre-2Oth of June Chinese nationals, they are a
special category. The specialty about their category is, as we've said, and I would
have thought was quite clear but it doesn't seem to be, that as far as that category is
concerned the one thing that will distinguish them is that if they say in those
circumstances that their judgement is that it's not safe to return, then they will not be
forced to go back against their will. But they will have no prospect of permanent
residence in that situation.
JOURNALIST: What about a Fijian or a Sri Lankan
PM: No
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
HAND: On that, all other people have the right to DORS.
PM: Right to DORS.
HAND: Right? Now, that's not diminished. So the post-June 20 people
PM: the same.
HAND: in the same boat. They apply through the DORS process. There's been a
decision taken in regard to the pre-June 20 PRC nationals which put them in a
particular category on their own. The rest of the process is exactly the same in terms
of people's rights. We're building into legislation a definition that now applied
through a convention and we'll be streamlining to pick up the point about people in
no-person's land, if you like, trying to fast track and get decisions for them in line
with the earlier questions.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hand, why has there been a cut in the migrant intake and how did
you arrive at the number of 14,000, rather than 20,000 or 30 or 40,000?
HAND: Well, first of all there's a number of the categories that are demand driven
and we've made an assessment of the demands based on projections from overseas
posts. We've also, we're determined to maintain a degree of skills in those particular
categories where they apply. The family reunion component has been held at roughly
the same as last year and generally we weighed up a whole range of issues. I think by
the fact that the Cabinet met for so long is a fair indication that some of the claims
made in recent times about it's an issue that doesn't get much consideration bears a bit
of changing.

JOURNALIST: Have you..
HAND: Well, I'd say there wasn't a member of the Cabinet who didn't make lengthy
interventions into the discussion and that includes the economic ministers. There
were, as I said, a whole all of the issues that have been flagged that should be
discussed in a debate like this were talked about in great detail. The question of the
new asylum processes and the reasons for bringing that into place, the issues that are
contained in that move are also factors that were brought into the debate as we looked
towards the future. So all of the issues economic, the environment, the effects on
discussions or the effects on the States and various capital cities. Recently I've had a
State Ministers meeting where that fact was brought forward by them. I've put in
place a process for detailed discussions to take place. Some of the outer States or
smaller States are, in fact, seeking more of a share of the intake and so we're looking
at ways in which we can do that. Currently some designated areas get five points if
you go there. But the trick is to hold people there when they get there. get the five
points and it doesn't quite work out as successfully as what it should. So those States
will have to look at how they can address that question and we'll do that with them.
JOURNALIST: check on some figures. I think you said at the beginning about
1400 of the pre-June 20 group had a red gn bc
PM: Between July and the latest date..
JOURNALIST: What does that leave the total in this special category and what, and
do you know how
PM: About 19,400.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: There are about 19,400 pre-June the 20th still here.
JOURNALIST: That's 19,400 less about 1,400.
PM: No, that's the 1,400 taken into account.
JOURNALIST: And do you know how many of that 19,400 had in fact overstayed
their visas already at June
PM: No, I don't know the answer to that question.
HAND: rm not sure of that figure. I can find the exact figure out for you, I think. In
terms of illegals
PM: Beg your pardon?
HAND: there were some certainly in that category. There were some certainly in
that category, but
JOURNALIST: But they are being in exactly the same
HAND: Well, you see, given the circumstances and the events at the time, we've
tried, I think it's almost impossible to separate people, given they were all in the same
situation, the same event affected both those groups and so for that purpose they've
been grouped together.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, your statement

PM: I'm sorry, Milton first.
JOURNALIST: If you were a major employer
PM: If I were what?
JOURNALIST: If you were a major employer and you were searching for good staff
and a PRC who was involved in one of these categories applied to you for a job,
would you be prepared to take that person on, invest a substantial amount of money in
the training of that person, educating that person in the job in the full knowledge that
in four years time that person might have to go back to China?
PM: Well, it's a judgement you'd have to make between those who were available for
the job. If you thought that this person was the person available, I think I would
and HAND: rye got an example of that where I was approached by people from the
academic world with some students saying look they don't want permanent residency,
but if they could be given some sort of extension, temporary extension, we would in
fact be able to employ them.
JOURNALIST: that's the academic world.
HAND: Well, well, I mean, it is, I suppose, an employment situation. It's an example
of if people have the skills people are after, they'll tend to employ them I think.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister
PM: I don't want to avoid The implication of your question is that because
under this decision that person hasn't been guaranteed permanent residence now, is
that a risk from the employer's point of view? Well, I suppose you can say it hasn't
got the same certainty as if a decision from the employeres point of view as if a
decision were taken now. But I would think in the circumstances it would be a risk
worth taking.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, your statement says that rolling over temporary
residence which indicates that if these people after four years want an extension of
their temporary residence, they might be able to get that?
PM: Not might, not might. I mean, why do you say might?
JOURNALIST: Well, if they don't choose to apply for permanent residence?
PM: Yes, well there's no problem there, but in regard to the rest of the category, there
is no might about it. They can and will be able to get it.
JOURNALIST: And do you also say that the holders of these special permits will be
able to work?
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Now is there going to be any limit on the number of extensions of
temporary residence these people can qualify for and if not, considering that you have
expressed concern about people already rorting the system, aren't we just allowing
people, some people just to stay without ever having to make any decision either way?
PM: Well, when you make the commitment that no person will be returned against
their will, then that follows, but what you've got to understand is that they have to

make judgements about the disadvantages from their point of view of not having
permanency of residence and all the advantages that are attached to that. But I mean
JOURNALIST: But we don't know what those disadvantages and advantages are yet?
PM: Well, because the Cabinet has got to make the decision about what precise
benefits are going to attached. I mean, the press release makes it clear be coming
back after the discussion with the Ministers concerned
HAND: Finance.
PM: to Cabinet in the near future.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, do you expect
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: that overall levels of immigration in future years be cut back
further? Is this a trend and do you think 126,000 is about right? I think you've said in
the past 140,000 is about right?
PM: Yes, well, the question in two parts. Neither I nor anyone else for the
Government will say or would want to say now what the future levels of migration
will be. I think it's let me be quite direct about this, Amanda, it is clear that within
the Government, as within the community, there are some different points of view
about appropriate levels of migration. But Gerry has brought forward, and the
Cabinet has accepted, what he thinks is appropriate at this point taking into account
the whole range of factors including the current economic situation. But, as has been
pointed out and as we discussed in the Cabinet, there will be at the end of this year, in
November I think Gerry, a conference on the whole question of immigration and
population levels under the auspices of the Bureau of Immigration Research in Gerry's
Department. We have also, as a result of the discussion yesterday, the suggestion was
made and was accepted by the Cabinet, we should also within the Structural
Adjustment Committee have a particular examination of the question of population
levels and the implications of those levels for future development of the economy.
So, out of our own internal Government considerations and also we will take into
account the things that will be said that emerge from that conference at the end of this
year, we will be in a position to be better informed about what sort of future shape the
program should have. So, no, the short answer, Amnanda, to your question is you
should not take this decision, which represents Gerry, I think only a 4,000 reduction
from HAND: In real terms.
PM: the outcome for this year, 88-89, is expected to be 130,000. That's for this
year we've nearly finished well, for the year just finished, the outcome is expected
to be 130 well, the program was 140,00, but the outcome is expected to be 130.
And so I'm saying that what has been decided for 90-91 is 4,000 below that. I don't
think, certainly Gerry didn't put it nor did we make a decision in terms of saying this
reflects what the pattern of future levels will be.
JOURNALIST: Did the question of community tensions play any part in the Cabinet
discussion as opposed to infrastructure problems and environmental concerns and
economic problems, the question of community tension..
PM: I think in the course of what was a very long discussion the question of attitudes
within the community were referred to. I don't think it was, you would say in any

sense a predominant or overwhelming part of the discussion, but there were references
to it.
HAND: I think in the terms of the asylum area, trying to get not only control over
that area, but also take into account the tensions that can develop by people who are
put in a situation of queue jumping, that sometimes has in the past created tensions.
That will be now overcome by this disciplined approach with the onshore arrivals.
JOURNALIST: Where does that leave the Cambodian boat people who are arriving,
those who are here and potentially those who may come?
HAND: Well, in terms of the Cambodian people here, they're all applying for refugee
status under DORS and that process is continuing along. When they make their
recommendations we'll be able to inform people what they are. I make no comment
about the Cambodians at all.
JOURNALIST: Will they be able to stay in the same way as the Chinese students
HAND: I make no comment, Laurie.
JOURNALIST: who don't want to go home.
HAND: Well, I cant make a comment about the Cambodians because there is a
process in place of which I end up being a part of and I don't intend to make a
comment about it.
JOURNALIST: Well, seriously at the end of that process
HAND: Well, I have been, well hang on
JOURNALIST: refugees, they will be in the same position as the Chinese students
who don't want to go home.
HAND: rm trying to be very serious about it because, given the rights of the people
concerned, I don't want to jeopardise those rights by me making a comment about it
given that I'm part of the decision-making process. It would be grossly improper of
me to do so. It would be in fact, lead perhaps, if it was a rejection, quite likely to a
intervention in the court. So I don't intend to make any comment about the likely
outcome of the DORS process or what may happen. Because there are three boats, as
you know, all in different stages of the DORS process and for that reason I'd ask
people to respect their rights by not asking me to make a prediction about what may
happen to the Cambodian
JOURNALIST: what does that say about Mr Hawke and Senator Evans' comments
very strongly suggesting that these people were not genuine refugees?
HAND: Well, I suggest you address that question to them. They're not formally part
of the decision process like me.
JOURNALIST: Well, I can certainly answer that. What Gerry is saying, and rightly
saying, that as Minister, the recommendations of the DORS Committee come to him
and he's got to make a decision. He is intrinsically part of that decision-making
process and for that reason he has said he is not going to make any comment. And it
is a perfectly proper response that he makes.
JOURNALIST: But you don't would jeopardise their right.

PM: Well, I don't believe so and what I'm concerned about and what the Cabinet,
importantly, is concerned about is that we deal with a situation in which, as Gerry
indicated before and pointed out to the Cabinet, there has been a massive increase
from what had been an average, I think, Gerry of something like up to 500 applicants,
up until last year where at the end of last year it just massively soared to something
like 4,000.
HAND: We're heading for about a six year waiting period unless we do something
PM: And in
HAND: people going through the process. Thus you've got to do something and it
is, the signs are it's going to get dramatically worse. So that's why we've had to adopt
or bring about these changes don't diminish people's rights.
PM: And which was not just, not just happening, as Gerry pointed out in his
submission, not only just happening in Australia, but was happening in Europe,
Canada and other relevant places. Now, what I'm concerned, as Prime Minister to
point out, is that in regard to that situation, as I said, it's not just reflected towards
Cambodia, but in regard
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: But if you want to, you know, just not be selective and remember all I said, I
made the point quite clearly, quite clearly, I said whether it was Irish I said it doesn't
matter who it is we're not going to have, as far as we're concerned, a situation where
people can just arrive
JOURNALIST: There are not many Irish boat people, Prime Minister.
PM: Now wait a minute. Well
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: However, there are other countries, and it doesn't matter, I mean whoever it is,
think you can just arrive here and that's it. And indeed, Gerry brought the submission
along yesterday which, in a range of ways, both directed towards legislation,
administration and interpretation that will make it clear that as far as this country is
concerned that can't continue.
HAND: Can I just give you one example about there aren't many Irish boat people.
What one country just experienced was a jumbo jet landing on the tarmac and
emptying out everybody on board and taking off and leaving them there. And that
country's having enormous difficulty getting rid of them. There are three or four
Australians in Canada seeking political refugee status because the process takes ten
years PM: Ten years.
HAND: So therefore they can stay there for ten years. This is a major problem facing
nations like us
PM: That's right.
HAND: and that's why we have to take this approach.
PM: Good way of getting a ten year work permit.

HAND: good laugh about the poor old Irish boat people, but tell you what it's not
just a question of boats. It's fast travel of large numbers of people moving around the
world and you need to have some control over the flow of those people coming in to
JOURNALIST: Will the work being done for the Structural Adjustment Committee
of Cabinet within the Departments, say Treasury and Finance, be made available at
this conference to take place in Melbourne in November on population and its
environmental and economic..
PM: Yes, well it will depend, obviously, how far we're able to process the work,
David, in the Structural Adjustment Committee. But clearly, we would want as a
Government and Gerry, from his Department, we would want to have as much
constructive input into that conference as we possibly could. And if our consideration
of the Structural Adjustment Committee has taken us to a point where it enables us
from that source to put material in, we would do it. I mean, I think the important
thing, David, is this, that we, and it's certainly the attitude of the Government, that we
recognise that the question of immigration is assuming a larger degree of interest in
this country. Not only the question of immigration, but obviously it's related to
population levels, what are regarded as desirable population targets for 20, 30,
years down the track. Now these issues have developed a growing significance,
there's a growing level of interest in the country. Now as a, as a Government, we
don't want to impose answers. I mean, if we can assist debate and constructive debate
in the community, we want to do it. I mean, I think that's our responsibility.
JOURNALIST: student from China. Is the Government continuing to accept the
students from China and how do we..
PM: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand. Did you get the question?
JOURNALIST: Is the Government continuing to accept students from mainland
China? PM: Is continuing to what?
JOURNALIST: Accept students from mainland China and refunds on the..
PM: Yes, sure, and the refunds. The question, could I tackle the latter part first in
regard to the refunds. This was a matter that was considered in Cabinet last night.
Let me say this, that in regard to those students. I mean, there are two categories, the
students, the people in China who have paid and who haven't left China and there are
those here who have met difficulties in particular institutions. Now the Cabinet last
night considered this matter and the Ministers concerned which most directly,
Minister Dawkins, but be's going to meet with, there's going to be discussions with..
but particularly with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
They are to report back to Cabinet on the mechanisms that need to be acpted in
regard to meeting Australia's obligations in this matter. They will be met, but they
have to come back with further details about the process in which this will be done.
Now, in regard to the first part of your question about accepting students, the question
of the, the ELICOS program in particular is one which is being reviewed by the
Minister, but generally speaking, our view is that we want here in Australia to develop
the concept of the export of education. Now say this subject to correction, but I
think in the last year, it brought in something of the order of about $ 100 million in
export income and we see it as something that is capable, both of providing a required
service to people in the region and also a good export income earner for Australia.
But we have to be quite frank and acknowledge that there have been difficulties,
obviously, in the way in which the scheme has operated and the Minister will be
bringing submissions to Cabinet to have a form of appropriate regulation of this

industry so that the difficulties that have, have operated in that area, problems for the
institutions and particularly problems for the students, will not recur in the future and
he'll be coming back to the Cabinet with further submissions on..
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke what response have you had from the Cambodian
Government to our..
PM: I can't I don't want to aviod the question, but what I can say to you is this.
That there have been very, as I'm informed, very constructive discussions have taken
place, and they are still continuing. In those circumstances it just wouldn't be
appropriate to go to any detail on them. But let me say this. I am hopeful from what
I've been told from the disucssions that there will be a very constructive outcome from
them. But I am not in the position to go to the details until they are completed.
JOURNALIST: In what form are they continuing, Mr Hawke, officials..
PM: At the official level understand.
JOURNALIST: Are the officials still in Cambodia.
PM: I don't know whether the officials are still there of whether it is being conducted
from here. But what I was told just within the last twenty-four hours is that the
discussions are continuing and whether we've still got people there, I don't know the
answer to that. But I repeat what I've said to Geoff, they have been very useful and
constructive discussions and I think there will be a positive outcome from them.
JOURNALIST:.. outcome, do you mean forced repatriation?
PM: I not, I'm not going to any further point from what I've said.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I've got nothing to add to what I've said. Discussions are going on and those
discussions will not be helped by any comment I would make about the likely
outcome from them.
JOURNALIST: The eight thousand Chinese nationals who have applied already for
the permanent residency, where do they fit in to the new scbeme of things?
PM: Well they what's been said it's referred to the in the release I think. It
suggested that they would probably be better going back into the general class
category, because while they are in the queue they do not get the same sponsorship
rights. So it's suggested, think that it's referenced to
HAND: All the same possible assistance
PM: All the same possible a reference is made here in the press release to it.
HAND: Third paragraph.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: If they choose to persist with their permanent residency applications
they may believe that that offers them more certainty.

PM: And we are not saying don't do that and what we are also saying is if after that,
they can still go back into the category.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke what you said on the does that mean that Cabinet has to
at least accept it in principle?
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: Does that mean that Cabinet has decided in principle that the
Government will have to make some funds available to ensure the proper and full
return of moneys paid out, either by the way of grants, or loans to institutions?
PM: We are accepting a responsibility in regard to students. Let me put it that way.
We are accepting responsibility in regard to students. And the method in which that
responsibility will be discharged is a matter of discussion between the Ministers
concerned to report back to Cabinet in the very near future.
JOURNALIST: And it's going to cost Prime Minister..
PM: There will be a cost. Yes there will be a cost
JOURNALIST: Mr Hand
PM: You can't discharge that responsibility without a cost.
JOURNALIST: On the social services question, could you explain what the hold up
is about making a decision about access to health services social security benefits? Is
there any assumption that this group, the Chinese group, mighit not be able to get
those, that support?
HAND: You shouldn't make any assumptions about anything until we go back to
Cabinet and that will be done shortly, between Ralph Willis and myself consulting
with other Ministers in the Cabinet. And that will be done very quickly and
announced before the program commences.
JOURNALIST: Why wasn't that done before the latest program was
HAND: Pardon?
JOURNALIST: Why wasn't that done before yesterday's Cabinet meeting. You've
been on this for months haven't you?
HAND: Pardon?
JOURNALIST: You've been working on this for months
HAND: I've been working on this for quite some time, yes.
JOURNALIST: So why weren't those consultations conducted in advance?
HAND: Well there needs to be more work done. It's a very complex set of issues that
we are going to be looking at and the judgement was, which I supported, that we
needed to do some more work looking at the range of areas in which assistance could
be provided. Now there can be information supplied on what other governments in
fact supply. And you will see that you can start from virtually nothing and work your
way through to full rights, in terms of if you had permanent residency. Now what we
have to do is make judgements and do some costings and continue to do what we have
been doing in the way of costings and judgements. That will be done. The Cabinet

was of the view there needs to be more consultation on this issue between
departments, and I think that that is proper and will be done very quickly.
JOURNALIST: If you put them in the special category why shouldn't they be entitled
to full rights?
HAND: In a sense of social security etc?
JOURNALIST: Yes.
HAND: Well that is obviously something that could be looked at, but it is not a
suggestion that was considered yesterday.
JOURNALIST: renunion program have full social security rights
HAND: Pardon?
JOURNALIST: The people who come out under the family reunion program
HAND: They do.
JOURNALIST: Come out with the expectation of immediate full social security
privileges. HAND: They do. They do. They certainly do. That's right.
JOURNALIST: these people if in a different category?
HAND: These people who now come in, in a situation of arrval here, and go into the
queuing system, that is the four year period, before they are eligible for permanency,
we'll be announcing as a result of these Cabinet discussions, what their rights will be
in terms of access to various programs. Now the Chinese group are in the same
category. JOURNALIST: Isn't that tantamount to putting some pressure on them to return?
HAND: To return to China?
JOURNALIST: Yes.
HAND: No. I wouldn't have thought so.
JOURNALIST: They could be given some..
PM: Of course they would, of course they would
HAND: Well first of all, as I said, because the fact that they have been here over
twelve months they are entitled to bring their spouse and children out here. Now
that's the first thing. Now in a lot of other countries that doesn't happen. In the terms
of the range of social type issues that they, or programs they would be able to access,
we're making some assessment on that. And continuing to make assessment on that.
Now I mean there is no, I think you are going to find out by comparison, they're
getting fairly well treated.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister on another matter
PM: Yes sure.

JOURNALIST: Do you support the dismissal by Mr Keating of the views of the
Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, and do you approve of the way Mr Keating
very publicly dismissed those views?
PM: You refer to his dismissal of those views. I don't know. I haven't read the
speech. I've seen the press report of it. I don't know whether he mentions the Deputy
Governor of the Reserve Bank. Let me say this, that I fully endorse the remarks of
my friend and colleague Paul Keating, the Treasurer, the Deputy Prime Minister. I
fully endorse his remarks. It follows as a matter of logic, having given you that
answer, what the answer to the second question is.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hand earlier on you made a reference to no more blowouts. I
took it to be in relation to the refugee-humanitarian area. Is that right?
HAND: Im talking about by moving to control what is obviously a ra pidly growing
component we are going to be faced with, that there will be no possibility in the
system, if we follow the system that I've outlined here today, that is, they will be
formally brought into the program and that's the object of the exercise. I mean they
will be formally brought into the program. They'll be able to be addressed in terms of
when you are making assessments year to year, what that figure ought to be. And so
it is yet another move to make sure that we are addressing the question of the annual
intake in a proper and orderly way. And if you look at what we've done so far this
year, we've reviewed the regulations. We've moved to have the population council
work on issues that have arisen in the general community. We've got the bureau
holding the conference and a whole range of papers being produced. We are about to
start after we've finished this exercise the secondary stage review of the regulations.
So by the end of the year we are going to have a package of things in place which will
give us the most control we've ever had over the immigration intake ever before. And
that's the purpose of the whole exercise.
JOURNALIST: How can you guarantee no blowouts in the refugee and humanitarian
category unfortunate potential for new refugee situation and international
pressure to reduce the overcrowded camps in South East Asia?
HAND: Well you see there is a three year canmp clearance program going on now
which we are ahead of schedule, and any other situation that develops overnight, we
would have to look at that as we have in the past and make judgement on it. But if
they are brought in under some, or land here, and a situation develops, they will be
introduced into the program in an orderly way. No more putting on top of the
program large numbers of people. They'll be queued and brought in in a discipline
way and that's the only way you can have proper planning.
JOURNALIST: But if the peace process fell apart in Cambodia for example, would
HAND: Well I am not going to make any comment about Cambodia. I know you
would like me to but I don't want to jeopardise the rights of the individuals concerned
by making any comment about their position.
JOURNALIST: Do you feel that the Premiers are starting a process that although it
won't be fully completed tomorrow is likely to lead to more fundamental changes in
financial relations?
PM: If you look at what they've been saying they have taken their concern beyond
just the area of Federal-State financial relations, and properly so. And you will see
from what I have to say tomorrow that I have myself been thinking in some detail
about the whole question of Federal-State relations going beyond the question of our
financial relations. And I'll be making some comments tomorrow which, you will see,
express that concern and deal with it. I think without, I don't want to pre-empt what

rm going to sy tomorrow, but I think it's fair to say this. I think as a nation it's
becoming increasingly clear that we do have to examine, in much more detail and
with much more commitment, the nature of the Federal-State relationship. Not with a
view to the Commonwealth scoring off the States or vice versa, but to try and address
the issue of how we best deliver services to people and to look at how best we
co-operate to create a competitive, efficient economy. And to the extent that the
States are giving evidence of their concern about these issues, I welcome it and it's, as
you will see, totally consonant with what I'll be saying myself.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke are you disposed to accept the six points that apparenty
all the States have now agreed to at the initiative of Premier Bannon? This united
front, does that make it very hard for the Commonwealth to reject it, or refute it?
PM: The common front. I've got a note here I think of the Premiers', reduced, I think
it's down now to six points. No I think that the fact that the States have been talking
together is not unusual because it is not the first that it has happened I
welcome it, and there does seem to be from what John Bannon has issued, plus
what I can judge from a direct personal conversation I had with him in Adelaide on
Saturday, there is a recognition in the States of the need to have a more constructive
co-operation in a whole range of areas. That's reflected in their statement. As I said
in the answer to the previous question, I welcome that.
JOURNALIST: Do you accept the idea of rolling, a rolling program, funding?
PM: Not necessarily. No. I think the concept of tying hands of the Commonwealth
as tightly as that in termns of macro-economic management has got drawbacks. But
having said that I can, we can, understand, both Paul and I can understand the
concerns that they have about trying to have a greater degree of certainty in their
financial situation. But let me make the point Michelle that in regard to a financial
position of the States, certainly about revenue is one thing, but they still have an
autonomy in regard to outlays. I think the figues are that for this last year if you look
at own purpose outlays, the States' own purpose outlays increased by 4.6 per cent real.
And ours by less than one per cent. So if you are going to have the total picture it's no
good just saying well they have some uncertainty about revenues. Whatever
uncertainty they had about revenues, whatever decline they had in own source
revenues, and whatever decision we'd taken last year which involved a reduction in
their expectations about our outlays to them, and what was their income from us,
despite that, the picture in this last year has been 4.6 per cent real increase in their own
purpose outlays and less than one per cent in ours. OK?
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: Are you happy with the standards of Ministers as Senator
Richardson seemed to be implying in his comments about Senator Button?
PM: Geoff, you're trying to get some legs on that one are you? The move on the
leadership which you arc running every week or so. Well I'll try to disappoint you as
much as I can Geoff so that you don't crank that one up again, it seems to amuse you,
take up your time, groundless. No I don't have different standards Geoff. I must say,
if I can, giving you a plus, a tick, rather than knocking you, I thought that the reaction
of your paper towards the Button statement was a reasonable one. If I look at this
Gallery as a whole, the beat up of Button on this last occasion was most, preeminently,
in one stable, one part of one stable. I thought the way you treated it, the
way that most treated it, that is with a rather dignified yawn, was appropriate and
JOURNALIST: Senator Richardson

PM: I think Senator Richardson, as I've seen the subsequent statements, is at ease, at
peace as he should be.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister if the statement from the Brotherhood of St Laurence
was a bloody disgrace and unchristian, what's Senator Richardson suggestion that
Senator Button should be sacked?
PM: Well, I don't know that would it describe it as unchristain. And I don't think that
he wants him sacked.
JOURNALIST: Well what was the difference between Senator Button's remarks in
May or June
PM: I don't What was that?
JOURNALIST: What were the differences between Senator Button's remaks in May
which.. PM: I read the transcript. After I saw your dashing headlines Glenn and the crisis
that I was confronted with and the test of my leadership I thought my God, terrible, I
better go and see this transcript. The Australian has got me skewered and Milne's got
me done. I'm really on the rack. I better read this transcript. I went to it with
trepidation Glenn. I thought here Hawkey your leadership is right on the line boy.
Button's blown it, criticised the Government heavily. And I was almost shaking, I
could hardly read it. But then when I read it Glenn you will find that there was no
breach of Government policy. There was no criticism of the Government. There was
no breach of what I'd suggested as to the way he should conduct himself. It was one
of those cases Glenn dear boy where most of your colleagues got it right and you had
a bit too much of a tremble.
JOURNALIST: the first time round Senator Button's first statement which did
create an outburst, an outcry in the Government, didn't seem to be much more than
what he said on Sunday.
PM: I think that that's not the case and certainly a number of my colleagues, as well
as Paul, thought that way. And in regard to this, and on this occasion it has caused no
concern at all. It was only in part of your stable Amanda that and its good to see
this solidarity that's very good.
JOURNALIST: why the first thing Senator Button said cause and outrage
PM: Well it may be confusing you, or your part of the stable. All I can say is that I
think generally speaking the Gallery got this one right.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke you said that there should be an ending made to public
airings of differences Senator Button said that he disagreed, or said private
ownership in television difference of emphasis.
PM: I say I read the whole of the transcript because I was impelled to it by you. I
mean you motivated me. I read the whole of the transcript and let me say in reading
the whole of this transript there was nothing which concerned me. And I didn't call
the Senator to see me he said he'd like to come and have a yarn to me, he did. We had
a year about a whole number of matters including his observations about that. So if
you want to, I mean if you want as I say Glenn to try and stitch legs on to the corpse,
do so. I mean that's what it's all about. But I can assure you my dear friend, I can
assure you there ain't any life in that corpse. And if you keep trying to sew the legs on
it will still remain lifeless.

JOURNALIST: ( inaudible) 21
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister was that outburst against Bishop Hollingworth, was
that theatrical, or was it fair dinkum?
PM: It was not theatrical and as distinct from some observers who've indicated that I
lost my cool or say Hawkey's blowing his top, it was a most considered statement. I
notice that some people suggest it might have been my speechwriter. It's not my
speechwriter. It was Bob Hawke and a very considered statement. And I must say
I've been very very pleased, generally speaking by the reaction. Just let me say, as
you've raised it, let me make the record quite clear. I said what I said there, not on the
issue of child poverty. If anyone wants to attack or attempt to attack this Government,
or me personally on the question of our record on child poverty, I'l1 handle that
anywhere, because we've got a better record than anyone else. But it was not what I
was talking about. I was talking about an unjustified and unjustifiably blanket attack
on all politicians in this country
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well can I finish? And what I regarded as something that was dangerous. I
believe it is dangerous, and particulary coming from sources like that and putting out
to young people that all politicians in this country are people who won't do anything
about an issue unless forced to, and particularly at election time. That to me is
unacceptable and I felt it my duty to strongly, and as strongly as I could, repudiate that
unfounded assertion. And may I say this, that in the subsequent discussion I had with
the Archbishop, which I may say was not a case of me as some news television
stations talked about me summoning the Bishop to my office. The facts are that the
Archbishop had an appointment with me in my office, and that was kept. And in that
discussion, a totally amicable discussion got that in that very amicable
discussion the Archbishop accepted tbat point and said, certainly as I did, it was quite
appropriate that I should have expressed myself. And just let me make this finial point
on it that the subsequent observation by the Archbishop that he wouldn't be silenced
on the question of child poverty, of course, is an irrelevancy. Because if you read my
speech I welcome the involvement of the Brotherhood of St Laurence in this area,
congratulated them on their work and hope they continue to be involved. It was a
quite separate issue. It's the issue of the protection of the integrity of politicians in
this country across the spectrum. I think it's just very very dangerous if that sort of
thing is allowed to go unanswered
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: And I wasn't prepared to let it go unanswered.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST: So it goes specifically your personal integrity.
PM: It mine and all. I mean Warwick you can try and ignore what I say that I'm
not talking about politicians as a whole, I'm only talking about myself Pm talking
about my own. I'm a politician. But my concern was not
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: My concern was not about myself. My concern was

I I ends 22
PM: Well look I'm not here to have a debate with you. I'm saying that my concern is
I think it is very dangerous, and I'm very very glad to see that a number of
commentators have taken the point. It's extraordinarily dangerous for this country, for
it to be fed into the community and particularly into the minds of young people, that
all politicians are crooks, because that's what it was. That no politician is really
concerned about an issue. He will only do something about an issue if he's forced into
it at election time. It's as repugnant as if I were to say that all journalists are crooks,
particularly at election time. I mean
JOURNALIST: They weren't saying were crooks.
PM: Oh, Michelle if you're saying that it is not a reflection that all politicians are
crooks, to say that all politicans; will only do something about an issue if forced into it,
especially at election time
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well because that's dishonest as well. Because all politicians purport, and this is
true of my opponents, as well as in my own party, they purport to have a real concern
and a preparedness to do things. They say that. So if you are saying that that's not the
case then you are saying they are dishonest. I mean that follows as a matter of simple
and irrefutable logic
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Look OK. Michelle I do not, I don't want to get into an argument with you. I
mean if you want to take the view that that proposition which says that all polticians
will only do something if forced into it, especially at election time, is not a reflection
of the honesty and integrity of politicians that's a view you are entitled to. I simply
don't share it. I say that the expression of that view is dangerous in this society,
because it is not true. It is not a true reflection of the commitment of pliticians
across the political spectrum, of politicians in the Liberal Party, of politicians in the
National Party, of Democrats as well as people in my own Party. It is an inaccurate,
and I believe, dishonest, unchristian reflection upon all politicians.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, just one thing in a broader spectrum on that. Hasn't the
Opposition questioned the Government's motives on child poverty Haven't you and
the Government questioned the Opposition's integrity for raising your issue. And
didn't you question the Opposition's integrity for making the
PM: ( inaudible)