730 report that are made on 60 minutes that are endlessly better than anything that TDT was doing.
Jerry, what, because you were in the unenviable position of having to shape a new nightly current affairs program.
You obviously gave a lot of thought to what the public wants, how to try and be different, how to do something that would make you stand out.
I hate to see this to generate the steward into a nightly
program because the truth is that although this day and night was very exciting, ground breaking, what we have now is a level of professionalism that's been
being used in the last few years.
And I think that's a very important point.
I think that's a very important point.
I think that's a very important point.
I think that's a very important point.
I think that's a very important point.
When I say ground breaking, ground breaking, what we have now is a level of professionalism that's as high as anywhere in the world.
Do credit to Four Corners, a wonderful program and these programs are covering a spectrum that could never be imagined now.
If you take it from Four Corners to hard copy, I don't put hard copy down, it caters to one part of the market,
So the audience has served better than it has ever been served before.
Has the audience taste changed?
I mean, perhaps demand is the better word than taste.
I've thought about this fairly keenly, that this day and night was dealing with a conflict
of philosophies, whole philosophies.
When people disagreed with Vietnam or disagreed about whether there should be Aboriginal rights,
they were actually disagreeing.
I mean, now everybody agrees that the Aboriginals should have a better deal.
It's just a question of how, right?
In those days there were people who actually didn't think that maybe Aboriginals should
have a better deal.
They thought it was wonderful for Australia to go into Vietnam because we had to follow
the Yanks and be wherever they were.
Nobody thinks that now.
This was virgin country, in a sense, for current affairs programs.
And since then the whole kind of Reagan era has come, political techniques, media techniques
among leaders of Australia, America, etc.
It's not virgin country anymore.
It's much more even balanced, as someone like Peter will say.
And I mean, it was a much easier time to have a daily current affairs program then.
I'm getting a wrap here.
Perhaps I should give the last word to Bill because having been right at the centre of
it, you now are also, in a sense, a viewer of current affairs programs, aren't you?
I mean, do you think, A, what the public wants to see on their current affairs programs is
being satisfied and has it changed much from the days when you were laboring away there
to try and decide what they wanted?
Well, I've had a quarter of a century to think about this.
And I have.
All I've said in the book is that TDT was the mother of current affairs and of all the
programs, not just of 7.30 Report and current affairs, but of so many other programs that
came out of it, including debates and discussions like this, which we used to do always at once.
I think that TDT, in a sense, remains around, in fact, I said in the book.
I think in some sense or other, it's always going to be around.
The rest of you agree with that?
I just got a couple of apologies on them now we've finished.
For the second 11, will I see Richard Carlton, Michael Carlton and others?
Couldn't be here, but thanks.
Well, thank you all for getting together tonight.
Bill's book is being launched by Gough Whitlam tomorrow, and I'm sure you'd want me to say
it's available in the ABC Shots.
But it's been great to get together again, the Class of 67.
Thank you very much.
We'll be back next Wednesday night.
Good night.
Ba ba black sheep, have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full.
Tiring endeavouring to entice industry to the island, and I think we all agree.
Sorry about that.
We've got the jitters up in Tullisinny tonight.
I think we'll...
Yes, as I was about to say.
Yes, well, sorry about all that.
I can hardly say more at this stage because, well, I hardly even know what to say as it
is.
We're now having our fifth telephone call.
I shall go to Hot Pants if I can find Hot Pants.
Next week we look at how we deal with the breakdown of marriage in Australia.
The Tasmanian MP Max Berth says we make divorce too easy.
Now he wants to do away with the lawyers, make counselling compulsory and replace the
family court with a tribunal run by counsellors and professionals.
So watch out for that.
Couchmen on Family Law.
That's ten o'clock next Wednesday night.
It's the ultimate festival for Australia's petrolheads.
A time to show off your car and let off steam.
For four days the summer gnats are all that matter to Vinnie and her mates.
So it's hardly surprising anything could happen.
It usually does.
Vinnie and the Revheads, eight o'clock Friday, ABC.
Good evening, I'm Kerry O'Brien.
Tonight we cross to Moscow and New York to talk to one of President Yeltsin's senior
advisers as well as one of his leading opponents in the Russian Parliament.
The Russian nightmare live by satellite straight after the news.
Good evening, Clive Hale with ABC National Late Edition News.
Thank you for joining us.
Heading the news tonight, the Prime Minister forced to sideline the human rights issue
in his talks with the Indonesians.
That follows President Saharto's warning that he won't brook outside interference in Indonesia's
internal affairs.
President Saharto's hard line on Timor at the state banquet certainly left Paul Keating
looking a little lame.
But the Prime Minister insists Australia's concerns over the issue haven't been forgotten
in his official talks.
He wants a diminished role for the military and also a more conciliatory approach to the
Timorese themselves.
Though the military may try to govern the place adequately and effectively, basically
the abbey had been too strong and at times too uncompromising and that therefore a broader
approach was necessary.
As for the Indonesians, they listened politely to what the Prime Minister had to say and
then made it crystal clear that Keating's advice would not be adopted.
There's been more heavy fighting in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo where Serbian paramilitary
forces backed by Yugoslav army units are attempting to seize control of vital installations.
Explosions shook the west of Sarajevo just before dawn, followed by a barrage of machine
gun and automatic weapons fire.
Heavy smoke billowed from apartment blocks and shops in the medieval city centre as Serbian
troops fired mortar and howitzers shells from surrounding hills.
Earlier, Serbian irregulars fought street battles with Bosnian police, which Radio Sarajevo
said had left at least six people dead and over 30 wounded.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says there's a ray of hope for resolving the dispute between
Libya and the west over the Lockerbie bombing suspects.
President Mubarak's comments came after talks with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi at a military
base in western Egypt.
Colonel Gaddafi travelled overland in a white Cadillac to the border a week after the United
Nations imposed its air embargo on his country.
President Mubarak said he hoped a solution could be found before the UN took any further
measures against Libya.
UN experts are pulling the pin out of Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal.
The special teams destroyed 463 rockets at a storage site south of Baghdad.
Some of them contained the nerve agent sarin.
In California, mass murderer Charles Manson has been denied parole for the eighth time.
Manson masterminded the slaying of actress Sharon Tate and eight others in 1969.
He was originally sentenced to die in the gas chamber, a sentence reduced to life when
California threw out the death penalty.
Does anyone have any remorse that I've spent 23 years in a solitary cell and even on Devil's
Island you didn't keep anyone over five years?
You broke every record that they've ever set on the planet earth.
Ironically the rejection of Manson's appeal came hours after double murder of Robert Harris
died in the gas chamber at San Quentin, the first person to be executed since California
reintroduced the death penalty.
The Supreme Court ruled out a series of stays of execution.
The British aircraft carrier Ark Royal has been bombed by one of its own planes.
Instead of hitting a floating target being towed by the Ark Royal, a Harrier jet dropped
a training bomb on the carrier's flight deck.
Six sailors received minor injuries.
An agreement signed today could be the springboard for expansion of Queensland's gas industry.
A consortium of companies will supply natural gas from Queensland to South Australia, a
deal that will create hundreds of jobs.
The agreement is the culmination of 33 years of exploration, discovery and top level wrangling
between nine joint venture partners.
The agreement will see the construction of a plant and pipeline from the Jackson gas
fields in South West Queensland linking with the Moomba pipeline in South Australia.
It will supply South Australian homes and industries, a 10 year deal worth $100 million
a year.
The Australian share market closed higher today thanks to a strong demand for local
shares.
BHP rose 20 cents, Colesmire 32 TNT 5.
The market indicator was up 11 points but the Australian dollar closed slightly weaker
on the day.
Former New South Wales Labour leader Pat Hills has died, he was 74.
Mr Hills held several portfolios in successive Labour governments.
Now let's take a look at tomorrow's national weather for you, some showers expected for
Sydney.
Shows also expected for Brisbane, a late storm for Darwin but it should be fine in Adelaide
and the other capital cities.
And that's ABC News to now, I'm Clive Hale, thanks for being with us around Australia.
Hope you can join us again tomorrow night.
In the meantime, stay with us now for Late Line, good night.
The protests against Boris Yeltsin and his radical economic reforms grow ever louder.
So far he's been able to hold off political challenges to his rule, but for how long?
It's the biggest mistake of any government when they lose the support of the population.
Now the nationalist chaos outside Russia's borders is being harnessed by Yeltsin's conservative
opponents.
If we don't stop this time bomb, it will blow up not only the Russian Federation and the
former Soviet Union, but the whole world.
Russia's nightmare, that's our story tonight.
And from Canberra, the ABC's Late Line.
Here's Kerry O'Brien.
Welcome to the program.
Today is Lenin's birthday, which invites some obvious speculation on what he'd be thinking
now about the disintegration of his old socialist empire and the desperate machinations of today's
Russian leader Boris Yeltsin to survive.
There is no doubt that Russia and its former partners in the old Soviet Union are in a
highly dangerous position, somewhat equivalent to the years prior to Lenin's revolution.
Over the past two weeks, Yeltsin has made heavy weather of a series of tempestuous confrontations
in the Russian Parliament.
The discontent in Russia grows daily as Yeltsin's attempt to reform a terminal socialist economy
into a relatively free market staggers on through increasingly rough seas.
His latest unpopular measure was to increase the price of petrol by 500%.
Then of course there are the growing headaches of ethnic conflict within and between the
newly autonomous republics.
Tonight we talk to a key Yeltsin advisor in this crisis, Galina Starovoitova, and to one
of his most outspoken parliamentary opponents, Mikhail Astasyev.
But first, this background report from our Moscow correspondent, Deborah Snow.
They turned out in their thousands of the weekend, Russia's pro-reform forces staging
one of their biggest mass actions since last August's coup.
They were there to support their idol, Boris Yeltsin, and to demand the resignation of
the powerful Congress of People's Deputies, which had spent most of the last fortnight
trying to emasculate the Yeltsin reforms.
Congress resigned, they chanted, demanding a referendum to entrench the president's
power.
But while Yeltsin still rides high in the Moscow opinion polls, many fear a national
referendum could be a risky undertaking.
While these few thousand hardy souls have turned out in support of Yeltsin, the question
is whether they represent anything like a majority, with economic reforms hitting hard,
many are worrying that the patience of whole sections of the population is running out.
On a mild spring morning, you might just mistake Moscow for any other thriving metropolis.
Along the Arbat, the main tourist drag, foreigners haggle over the price of Boris or Gobi.
Locals investigate the flea markets, springing up on Moscow's main streets.
But take a closer look and see the symptoms of a society in crisis.
At the Arbat, the ruble, hit by hyperinflation, is spurned for the American dollar.
At the flea market, most traders are simple householders, peddling the most paltry of
items, trying to supplement meager salaries of less than ten US dollars a month.
That's well below a living wage since prices have soared.
Yeltsin's economic shock therapy is hurting in other ways.
Production is plummeting on the land and in the factories.
Insolvency is rampant among enterprises.
Health and transport workers threaten a wave of strikes.
For the first time in decades, the spectre of mass unemployment looms.
They do such things that our population don't want to support these reforms anymore.
It's the biggest mistake of any government when they lose the support of population.
The tranquil elegance of the Kremlin Grand Palace seemed an unlikely setting for a political
showdown.
But it was clearly brewing as the thousand members of the Congress flocked here on April
6.
These deputies were elected more than two years ago, when there still was a Soviet Union.
It was their first meeting since the Yeltsin price rises in January.
So here in the halls where Lenin's portrait still hangs, Yeltsin had to expect a fight.
But no one anticipated the theatrics that were to follow.
The Burley president narrowly survived the first test, an attempted vote of no confidence.
But as the weak wore on, Congress flexed its muscle, muzzling the reforms and threatening
to strip Yeltsin of his right to appoint ministers.
Only when the chief architect of reform, Yegor Gaidar, announced the entire cabinet was submitting
its resignation, did Congress relent.
Frantic negotiations produced a vote in favor of the thrust of reform, but left open the
question of how long Yeltsin would be left to run the government with his existing powers
intact.
The vote on the economy was a vital win, but the whole saga hardly an unparalleled triumph
for the government.
No, I don't think that one can speak about a victory of only one side.
I think that it is a reflection of the fact that the potential of social patience among
our population is already exhausted and we are quite close to a real explosion and certain
social concessions are necessary.
Still in fractious mood, the Congress went on to vote against measures which would free
up the sale of land.
Yeltsin's biggest task now is to stop the forces of reaction from both left and right
making gains in popular support.
Besides the economy, the chaos now sweeping many former Soviet republics is also ripe
for exploitation.
When former Soviet republics formed the Commonwealth of Independent States or CIS late last year,
they proclaimed the dawn of a new era.
Instead, it's opened a seeming Pandora's box of old enmities and grievances.
The bloodiest has been in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Muslim Azeris and Christian Armenians are locked in murderous combat over this mountain
enclave which sits entirely inside Azerbaijan but is mainly populated by Armenians.
The full panoply of modern warfare has been deployed with horrific consequences for civilians
and militia.
Russia's foreign minister has warned of catastrophe if the fighting continues, yet the CIS has
been powerless to stop this undeclared war between two of its members.
In the independent republic of Moldova, events have been hurtling down a similar path.
These are Russian speaking separatists trying to break free of Moldovan rule.
The former Soviet 14th Army stationed here has been threatening to come to their aid
against Moldovan militia and back in Moscow, the nationalists are also urging armed intervention
to come to the aid of their countrymen.
If the government is not willing to use force to protect its citizens where there is no
other way to protect them, people will lose all faith in the existing state structures.
But most worrying for the West is the ongoing war of words between the two biggest CIS members,
Russia and Ukraine.
At stake is control of the Black Sea fleet and also the future of the Crimea and its
port of Sevastopol where the fleet is based.
The region was given to Ukraine by Moscow's communist bosses in 1954 in an inter-party
deal.
Now Russian nationalists want it back and the fleet kept in Russian hands.
1954 was the year of a criminal act against Russia when one of its best territories was
given away.
But Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk has warned of bloodshed if the Crimean question
is reopened.
As Russian refugees flee former Soviet republics where they are no longer welcome, it's all
powerful ammunition for the new nationalists in Moscow.
Vladimir Lukin, Yeltsin's ambassador to Washington, believes the seeds for a backlash have already
been sown.
I am sure that the Soviet Union was dismantled too rapidly, too inaccurately, too undelicately.
I am afraid that the rapid decision to produce the so-called independent states will produce
the backlash reaction, not because of desire of President Yeltsin, of the parliament and
so on, but because the people all over the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union territory
will be tired with all this mess.
As for the conservatives, they harbour no doubts.
If we don't stop this time bomb, it will blow up not only the Russian Federation and the
former Soviet Union, but the whole world.
Apocalyptic may be, but few are complacent about the future.
That report from ABC correspondent Deborah Snow, and now to our two guests.
Galina Staravoiseva is a member of President Yeltsin's inner circle, his advisor on inter-ethnic
affairs.
She's also a member of the Russian parliament where she's been embroiled in some stormy
debate over Russian minorities in republics like the Ukraine and Moldova over the past
two weeks.
Tonight, she joins us from New York, where she's on a brief visit for the Yeltsin government.
And in Moscow, Mikhail Astasyev, chairman of the constitutional democratic party in the
Russian parliament.
He's a leading voice of conservatism and is on a collision course with the Yeltsin camp
over the pace of economic reform and on how to handle the explosive ethnic disputes.
Welcome to both of you to the program tonight.
Mikhail Astasyev, just two months ago you told this program that Boris Yeltsin could be thrown
out of office within a few months.
How safe is he now as leader after the last two weeks of the parliament?
When I spoke last time about few months, I suppose that two is not only few.
Few months may mean half a year.
And I suppose the position of president Yeltsin is not very easy now after the congress because
opposition in congress was enough powerful.
I suppose you can solve it.
Do you believe that his position now is weaker?
It's enough to go to streets of Moscow and to see Moscowites near Kremlin.
We saw some hundreds of Moscowites supporting Yeltsin near on the Red Square with the help
of militia.
They go there and the opposition was not allowed to go to Red Square.
But opposition forces stood near Hotel Russia and it was some thousands.
And yet Yeltsin told you and others in the parliament yesterday that his reform program
was unstoppable and that the parliament must stop dominating the government.
What do you intend to do in response to that?
Do you accept that that program is unstoppable?
I suppose simply life would stop the program because the program is destructive.
If we face the higher level of unemployment, the fall of industrial production, life would
stop the program.
But it's better for the country, for the government itself, to change this destructive course.
And how would that happen?
I suppose they must change their priorities to leave aside monetary policy and think more
about production level and unemployment.
And just one example, sorry, yesterday the price of petrol was 500% higher than before.
But in the opening of the congress, the vice premier, Yegor Gaidar, promised not to do
it until the June.
You see the promises of government and the real life.
There has been a lot of speculation leading up to and during this period in the parliament
that Boris Yeltsin would use his presidential powers to dissolve the parliament and rule
by decree.
Do you feel that that was ever a possibility and is that still a possibility?
You know, as we have a constitution that looks like American, imagine what would happen in
America if a president would dissolve congress.
It's just the same situation as in our country, because if president would dissolve parliament,
that would mean only coup.
And of course, when somebody performs a coup, he must think twice about consequences.
Remember the situation in Argentina or in Greece.
Sometimes the organizers of a coup and their days in jail.
Do you feel, though, that if the president was moved to adopt extreme measures to keep
his reform program going, to continue to rule the country, do you believe that he would
have the support, enough support from the military to do that?
That depends, of course, on the real course of program.
If the program would be supported by a population, so what for to perform a coup?
But if the program of policy is against the interest of people, then you need to support
from military forces.
But I'm not aware that military should support such situations.
But you've said that Yeltsin supporters, you've likened them to Bolsheviks, to neo-Stalinists,
even.
What do you mean by that?
I may show you only one example.
Just now I have the second opportunity to speak to Australian people, but I am not permitted
to speak to my own population, because we have a political censorship.
That's only one example.
Imagine we have a government television, but on that television program only people who
support the government have the opportunity to deliver their views.
I suppose it resembles me the days of Stalin.
Galina Staravoitova, when Boris Yeltsin says that his reform program is unstoppable, how
far do you think he will go to implement his economic program?
I think first of all, the supporting and the personal rating of Mr. Yeltsin remains still
very high.
And we know it from the data of sociological polls.
And I cannot agree with Mr. Rastafiev that the reforms have not the supporting from the
side of population.
It is not so.
And I think presidency, this institute, is now the main locomotive which can push, promote
the reforms further.
I hope he will stay on his office.
And I hope we cannot now change the system of ruling of the country, because the Congress
of People's Deputies, which was elected two years ago in another condition, in fact during
the priority ruling of the totalitarian regime, it cannot rule the country four years further.
And the majority of these deputies, more than 80 percent, were communists.
And I think the majority of them still remain the communists, even despite they join sometimes
into another party with brilliant titles.
But President Yeltsin's position is somewhat less stable, is it not, after these last two
weeks in the parliament?
Certainly he survived it, but that no confidence vote was very close.
And there was even one occasion when he wasn't allowed to speak in his own parliament as
president.
Yes, the Congress was very difficult, it is natural, because I said about the reasons
the composition of the Congress does not correspond to the real social, economical structure of
population in the country and real processes.
But Mr. Yeltsin survived.
He will make some corrections in the practical course of ruling, and the government will
be a little bit changed.
But they still remain as the leaders of reform.
And by the way, the first post-communist government normally have to be withdrawn, and we unfortunately
have such kind of examples, for example, in Poland, the government of Mr. Mazowiecki,
in Estonia, the government of Mr. Savissar, in Lithuania, government of Mrs. Prunskynia,
and so on.
And if our government will still have an opportunity to continue the reform, I think we shall be
very lucky.
So in other words, President Yeltsin is battling uphill to survive in the face of that kind
of historical precedent that you talk about.
Yes, I think so, and he is in a difficult position, but due to the supporting of the
population, I think the reforms will be irreversible.
Do you think that if he is confronted with a parliament that becomes unworkable, that
he would consider the last resort of dissolving that parliament?
Unfortunately, our president has not such kind of right.
It was not fixed in constitution, like for example in French constitution and in constitutions
of other countries.
He cannot do it.
This parliament can only dissolve it itself, like it was done with the All-Union Parliament
half a year ago after the abortion of Kudata.
But this parliament will keep their places, and the deputies had this bitter experience
on their eyes, the experience of All-Union Parliament.
They will not leave the power, unfortunately.
And maybe in some months we shall be forced to organise a parallel structure or unit of
power, something like constitutional meeting, persons who will be elected, especially to
adopt a new constitution.
So effectively to change the whole structure?
Sorry?
Effectively to change the structure?
Unfortunately, for the transitional period we stay with the same old structures of power,
and it is not efficient enough.
And in fact now we have a more promoted, more progressive and more young in social and biological
meaning government, executive power, than legislative power.
And it is our problem.
Boris Yeltsin is also walking a tightrope over the question of Russian minorities in
other republics.
How explosive an issue is that potentially?
What is your worst-case scenario?
Yes, it is a great problem because after the breakdown of the last empire in the world,
we realised that the symbolic borders between our republics, the majority of them were just
drafted by Stalin in Stalin and Khrushchev times.
They became real borders and in several cases they are not already transparent.
And it is a problem because 25 million Russians stayed abroad of Russia and became ethnic
minorities.
It is very difficult for people to realise their new positions.
But it is your position, isn't it, that you would leave Ukrainian Russians or Moldovan
Russians or Georgian Russians to fend for themselves?
Russia willingly refused from the role of Big Brother.
We willingly recognised the independence of new sovereign states and we cannot be involved,
for example, with the help of military power in the affairs of these states.
But we shall pay enough attention to the problems of our compatriots abroad.
And we have 12 million Russians in Ukraine and 5 million Ukrainians in Russia on the
other hand.
And of course we shall care about their cultural and other demands.
But you would not send troops in to protect them?
We cannot protect them by the power.
We can only have the negotiation on the international level in accordance with Helsinki summary
document and other international documents and international law.
And that touches Moldova and Azerbaijan and other republics.
Mikhail Astasiev, how far should Russia go to claim back Russian minorities in republics
like the Ukraine and Moldova?
How far should Russia go in your view to protect those minorities?
I suppose the government that wants to have popularity in its population must behave like
it is normal in international relations.
Remember an American government, when some Americans are under danger in some Caribbean
isle, you see that very often American government make the strong position on the issue.
Especially in the case of former Soviet Union.
It suggests to the point of Galina Staravoytova and Yeltsin's surroundings that the Soviet
Union and Russia was the prison for nations.
But I should ask you, do you saw the prison when the prisoners want to be put into prison?
Now we have messages from the Supreme Soviet of the Gagalus Republic, from the Supreme
Soviet of South Ossetia, from Crimea peninsula, and they ask to be taken into Russian Federation.
Yes, but let me put this to you.
Let me put this to you, because we are running out of time.
If the Crimean Russians say they want to be a part of the Russian Federation, but the
Ukraine will not allow them to do that, the Ukraine says Crimea is now part of the Ukraine,
what would you have the Russian Federation do?
Eventually use military force?
I suppose it's not needed because their idea of being integral part of Russian or some
sort of Soviet Union is so popular that it doesn't need some military support.
The population wants to be together with us, and the only power who may interfere would
be Ukrainian forces, so do the aggression that came from Kiev in such case.
In which case you would expect the Russian Federation military to respond?
It is a very special case.
I suppose all this conflict might be dissolved without arms.
The only thing that is needed is strong position of government, because we have so many links
with other republics, I mean economical links, military links and so on, that it is not in
the interest of any republic to use military force on border problems.
The only thing that I state, we must consider the interest of ordinary people.
Galina Steravoiteva, what do you say in response to Mikhail Astasiev?
Unfortunately I have to think that it is an irresponsible position, if we shall follow
the advice of Mr Astasiev and to use arm and power in relations with Ukraine, the Yugoslavian
way will be provided for us and for all the globe.
And of course we shall recognize the right for self-determination of Crimean population
if they will vote for independence or for reunification with Russia.
We still don't have such kind of response, such demand from their side.
And he is not quite correct in this position, but it does not mean that we shall use the
troops and the troops of the CIS or Russian troops.
We have solved this problem by the peaceful negotiation.
And especially when I feel the lack of confidence from the side of Ukraine, and one of my friends,
a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Yuri Sherbak, he was a member of the all-union
parliament at the same time, and he said that we both, I mean both peoples, are like the
prisoners who came out together from the same prison, but still are connected by the same
chain.
But if we shall destroy at all this chain, maybe we shall find that we cannot live without
each other.
But it is a problem of future.
Of course people voted for their independence, and they want to be free.
First of all I mean the position of Ukraine, Baltics countries, and the Transcaucasus republics.
And of course when we take the problem only from the Russian point of view, through Russian
glasses, we are not enough objective.
Do you acknowledge, though, that given the instability and uncertainty over the economic
conditions in Russia and the other republics, the kinds of violence that have, an instability
that has broken out in some of the republics over the ethnic violence, that the situation
right now is really quite explosive and dangerous?
Yes, it is dangerous and explosively.
I think so.
It is a bad background, this economical crisis, to solve another kind of problems.
I mean the transition to the multi-party system, to the real parliamentary pluralism, and the
solving of the national states problems.
Of course we combine now three revolutions at all at the same time.
I mean the transition from empire to the new free confederation of independent states,
the economical reforms, the transition to market economy, and so on.
And we shall try to do it in a peaceful way.
We shall be very responsible and very careful, and we cannot risk by all this program if
we shall care about, first of all, different kinds of ethnic minorities abroad of Russia.
Okay, and that is where we're going to have to leave it tonight because we're out of time,
but thank you both very much for joining us.
Thank you.
And now let's find out what's making headlines back here in Australia.
The financial review leads with the Prime Minister's shift away from human rights in
the new relationship between Australia and Indonesia, the emphasis now on political stability
and economic growth.
The West Australian highlights the lukewarm response from President Sahato to Paul Keating's
call for a summit of Asian Pacific leaders.
The Australian covers the return home of the man at the eye of the New South Wales political
storm, Terry Metheral, with MPs demanding proof that his job offer was not corrupt.
On that same subject, the Sydney Telegraph Mirror reprints Metheral's brief letter of
application for the position in the Premier's department, released to the paper by Nick
Greiner himself.
The letter also appears in the Sydney Morning Herald, which charts the former Liberals'
very fast track into a top job, all on the same day.
And the Herald Sun in Melbourne leads with the OECD figures showing Australia's tumbling
standard of living.
We are now ranked 13th amongst the organisation's 24 members.
And reporting on the tariff story that has given opposition leader John Hewson a serious
political headache is Brad Norrington from the Sydney Morning Herald's Canberra Bureau.
Brad, how seriously do we read the position that John Hewson is in, because the numbers
within the national ranks are starting to mount, aren't they, in opposition to that
tariff, zero tariff level?
Well, that's right, Kerry.
What started off as a fairly small rebellion, if you like, within Queensland National Party
ranks by three senators has now turned into a national debacle involving Queensland, New
South Wales, Victorian and West Australia National Party figures over the issue of sugar
tariffs, but more particularly an overall cut in tariff levels and why, in fact, they
should proceed when farmers believe that they are competing on corrupted world markets.
So it's already moved beyond sugar and it's now virtually all embracing.
They're now effectively saying leave tariffs generally where they are.
We want the status quo for the time being.
Certainly at the level of the Queensland National Party, they are trying to confine the issue
to sugar tariffs, but it has been broadened by the leaders of the national party in the
states to include overall tariff levels.
And to what extent is Tim Fischer now close to losing majority support within his own
party on this?
Well, it's rather close because eight out of 18 of the sitting federal national party
members are now seriously calling for an end to the zero tariff policy under John Husson's
fight back package and it creates a really big rift for John Husson and a problem for
Tim Fischer's own leadership.
It was interesting, Husson this morning came on with a very strong line about the nationals
in Queensland saying that they no longer lived in the old days of the pork barrelling.
Is it correct that Tim Fischer has not done anything today to distance himself from those
comments and what impact is that likely to have for him within his own ranks?
It makes life very difficult for Tim Fischer because obviously in John Husson's comments
he is directly attacking the national party itself.
He's attacking the psyche of the national party if you like.
So Tim Fischer now is put in the position of having to fall behind John Husson which
he's done so far or go back and try and defend the Queensland national party members who
he leads.
And some of the senior national figures are even now saying that John Husson is playing
foul and that the coalition leadership had promised at the time of the fight back package
that there was scope for flexibility that it wasn't set in cement.
That's right.
That's the story that the Herald is running tomorrow to the effect that the nationals
say that they entered and supported the fight back package on the understanding that it
could be reviewed.
Now they feel dutted I suppose is the best way to describe it because John Husson is
saying that under no circumstances will the tariff policy be reviewed.
It will be interesting to see the fallout from that one.
Brad thanks very much for talking with us.
Thanks Kerry.
That's all from us for tonight.
Tomorrow we have a portrait of an industrial dispute which many say is a fight to fashion
the workplace of the future.
I hope you can join us then but for now good night.
We are quite close to the real explosion.
Good night!
Jazz is now comes from the bigger than ever 1992 Montserrat Jazz Festival in Melbourne.