E&OE..............................................................................
Well ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the APEC Leaders'
meeting concluded a short while ago and not surprisingly this meeting
has been dominated by the global financial crisis, in particular,
its impact on the economies of the APEC region and a lot of time was
spent on ways in which the region might respond to the crisis, the
lessons to be learnt and the mechanisms that could be put in place
at both the country level and also an international level to try and
prevent such events occurring again, or if they do occur again, mitigating
their impact.
I can report quite substantial outcomes in the three areas which I
identified before the meeting as essential for achieving the overriding
objective of an early return to growth. And they were the reaffirmation
of the Bogor commitments to open markets, a commitment to domestic
financial and economic reforms, and urgent and practical steps to
improve the international financial system.
These have been the subject of a number of speeches I've made,
most particularly the speech I made to the Financial Supervisors'
gathering in Sydney a few weeks ago.
The Australian Government's $50 million initiative on strengthening
financial and economic management was widely welcomed, particularly
by some of the least developed countries such as Vietnam and Thailand
and this is acknowledged in the statement in paragraph 28. There was
also an endorsement of Australia's proposals for implementation
of codes of international best practice that's to be found
in paragraph 26 and there was an endorsement of my proposals for working
groups on capital flows and hedge funds and on crisis management and
reference should be made there to paragraph 25.
The latter, that is the one relating to the crisis management, to
develop for example practical proposals for orderly work out arrangements,
and this has been progressed either through the G22 which I guess
would be preferred or APEC finance deputies' forums, and I've
indicated to the meeting that Australia would be prepared to host
this group if necessary.
There was an endorsement of the blueprint for action on electronic
commerce and Australia was the co-chair of the working group which
looked after the blueprint and we also reached agreement on a co-operative
growth strategy, its reference being in paragraph 7, with particular
contributions there from the US/Japan initiative and the Miyazawa
plan.
As I've said before ,the EVSL outcome was second best, but we
did achieve a renewed commitment to moving forward to the Bogor targets,
which in the current economic climate is no small achievement. Sixteen
economies including Japan agreed to the full nine sector package being
taken to the WTO, that's in paragraph 19, and we were instrumental
in securing a strong reference to early agreement on broad-based WTO
negotiations.
Could I just conclude my introductory remarks by saying that the meeting
was, as I said at the beginning, dominated by the impact of the financial
crisis. It is obvious that the crisis has had quite an impact on the
social life and the political life also of many of the countries in
the region. Some of them are still very severely shaken as a result,
but the encouraging thing is that a number of them have already administered
large doses of very nasty, but necessary, domestic economic medicine,
and have begun to enjoy or reap, it's a more appropriate word,
some of the benefits of that.
I've said previously, and I can only repeat it again tonight,
that I admire the steps that have been taken by countries such as
Thailand to respond to particular problems. I'm very pleased
to report that there is widespread appreciation within the region,
of the very constructive role that Australia has played.
The last 18 months have seen Australia play the sort of role that
we ought to, and we can, and we should, and we are best equipped to
play in the region. We are not a world power, but we are a significant
regional power. We have a very stable political system, a very strong
economy, we have impeccably high standards of economic and corporate
governance. We have a sound legal system. We are therefore are in
a very strong position laterally to play an important role in the
region and we have been seen over the last 18 months as a good friend,
helping above its weight and willing to give a lot of practical help
to countries that are particularly important to Australia, and it
is evident that our efforts in relation to Indonesia and Thailand
and Korea are well appreciated within the region, and there's
an understanding that Australia is a very strong player, a very strong
participant, a permanent friend, not an uncritical supporter, but
a permanent friend of the region, and one that is going to continue
to play a very important role, indeed, an increasingly important role,
and one of the most gratifying things for me, as Australian Prime
Minister, was the recognition of Australia's role in region.
We don't have exaggerated images of it, we don't claim special
relationships freely with particular countries. We do play, of course,
a special and enduring interest in the region because it is our region,
it will forever be our region, and we do bring those particular assets
of our culture and our history and our geography and our background,
which is of enormous benefit, and we are increasingly seen as being
able to bring great value to our association to the region, and that's
been very evident over the last 18 months and it was very evident
at today's meeting, and we've certainly been able to demonstrate
that there is an Australian way which is different and is very valuable
and very positive in the region.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, are you convinced that, as you said the other day, the
APEC vehicle, as a vehicle for trade liberalisation, is in third gear
but can still go back up to fourth, and it is not going to go backwards?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I am quite convinced of that, yes. You have to recognise that
because of circumstances a decision was taken by one of the biggest
countries in the grouping that it couldn't proceed further on
the EVSL. Now, we were sorry about that, but once a decision like
that's been taken, you've got to be realistic. You've
got to understand the reasons why. But we do have a commitment from
all of the countries that they will go as a group in 1999 to the World
Trade Organisation in relation to those nine sectors. So that is obviously
a lot better than what the alternative to it would have been. Now,
when you remember what has happened over the last eighteen months,
you have to acknowledge that some kind of change of gear, to revert
to my original analogy, was perhaps unavoidable.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that in the past expectations about APEC have been perhaps
a little bit too high, and as a result of this meeting, expectations
in future might be more realistic?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. I'd say yes, yes to both. It was probably, in retrospect,
and I don't blame anybody for this. I don't blame the former
government. I don't blame the media. I don't blame the present
government either, let me say. It was, I think, the case that some
of the expectations were a little too high, and I think people will
have more realistic expectations now. But, I mean we are continuing
to make very solid progress. And to think that after all that many
of those countries have been through, we've had the sort of outcome
we have today, and there's a lot of renewed optimism because
of that about the future, I still believe it would play an extremely
significant role.
JOURNALIST:
What's your response to claims that APEC is really not going
anywhere and ought to be wound up?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the claim is wrong and the suggestion is silly, and
would be against the interests...all the history of economic development
and the history of exchanges between nations suggests that you try
and use a number of vehicles and a number of forums to achieve outcomes.
One of the most significant things today, to me, was that nobody,
but nobody, seriously argued against globalisation. Everybody accepts
that globalisation now is a fact of life. People might say that we
have to handle it in a slightly different way. People might say we
have to improve our capacity to help people through the impact of
globalisation, but nobody was saying that we should turn our back
on globalisation or that there was really any alternative. The arguments
are all at the margin. The arguments are more about process and response
and not about direction.
Now, if it is a given that globalisation is a fact of life, and it
is, and I've argued that very strongly, and it's perfectly
obvious that it is, then the existence of a body like APEC is extremely
beneficial because APEC is a remarkable grouping of countries and
I, more than at the earlier two meetings, had driven home to me today
the differences, the contribution, of the three Latin American countries
and their experiences bring a very special emphasis to this gathering,
which is different from the experience of the Asian countries, strictly
defined, which in turn differs amongst themselves, between those that
have been more successful and those that have been less successful.
And then you add to that the experience of our own, one of the highly
developed countries, which has probably, along with the United States
and Canada, been less affected by the Asian economic downturn than
probably any other country, you don't get a grouping like that,
and you don't get a sharing of experiences like that, anywhere
else in the world. And to turn your back on that would be crazy, and
would be counter-productive and would be self-defeating, and would
really be throwing away the opportunity that being part of that grouping
presents to us. You don't get such a grouping anywhere else in
the world and it still remains the region of the future, of that there
can be no doubt. The rhetoric was perhaps a little high blown in the
past but it still certainly is very much the region of the future.
JOURNALIST:
Given the emphasis on the financial arrangements, is the role of APEC
evolving and changing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Inevitably it changes a bit, but it is still fundamentally a body
which is about trade liberalisation, about encouraging growth amongst
its members, and lifting the living standards of its peoples. And
you'll notice that in none of the proposals about financial management
is there any suggestion that we set up new bodies within APEC to rival
the IMF or anything like that. And there's a reference to G22
which I think is very desirable. I mean G22 is a very good body for
looking at international financial governance because, unlike the
G7, it does include a number of countries that are closer to the developing
countries. It is a more broadly based grouping than G7, and of course
G7, apart from Japan, does not include any Asian countries.
JOURNALIST:
How important do you think this declaration will be then, in the sense
that you think the G22 as being the essential advisory body on changes
to the international system, as opposed to the G7?
PRIME MINISTER:
It will add to the putative status of the G22, it will certainly add
to the status of G22. I don't want to put it any more strongly
than that because G7 includes, of course, the major industrialised
countries of the world, so does the G22, and there's always a
little bit of sensitivity amongst some of the big players about involving
others. From our point of view, we think G22 is much better, not only
because Australia is a member of it, but that's important because
we can bring some perspectives. I have to mention again the perspectives
that we were able to bring in relation to Indonesia. If others had
been left to run their course on that I think you'd have had
a much worse outcome in Indonesia than turned out to be the case.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what does today's result make you think about the
future of the Australian export industries and the jobs that come
with them that have benefited from trade liberalisation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, what it makes me think is that we have to continue to improve
efforts at explaining the benefits of trade liberalisation to our
communities. I've said before that it's always easy to point
to an old industry that has been closed down or has been reduced in
size because it's been beaten by cheap imports. It's always
a lot harder to capture the examples, but I'm sure that Mr Fischer,
in his inimitable style, will be trotting out even more examples in
the months ahead. And I think it's very important.
JOURNALIST:
How much difference did it make that President Clinton did not come?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very hard to know, Paul, it is always a help to have the President
of the United States present. There is no doubt about that. It is
always a help but he had reasons for not coming which I understood.
JOURNALIST:
Things would have gone more smoothly do you think?
PRIME MINISTER:
They would have gone differently.
JOURNALIST:
Better?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is always better to have the President, the occupant of the
most powerful political position in the world, around the table. It
is always an improvement to have that but that is not meant to be
critical of Vice President Gore.
JOURNALIST:
Would he have delivered the same speech?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you will have to go and ask the White House that.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think you struck the right balance of capital flows issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I do. Nobody is talking about regulating capital flows. I mean
we are specifically not talking about that, I mean we believe in capital
flows. They are the life-blood of international financial activity.
They are enormously beneficial.
JOURNALIST:
Australia's individual action play of the review of all tariffs
by the year 2000 - when will that take place and what form will it
take?
PRIME MINISTER:
It will take place by the year 2000. Well, I just don't know
precisely, Michael. I can't answer that but if you want to know
I will give some thought to it, but I just don't know off-hand
what precisely will be the review mechanism. I mean bear in mind that
in a number of areas we have a predetermined glide path and if you
are not going to change those and it is very interesting to reflect
on some of the criticism that was made of the government's decisions
on motor cars and textile, clothing and footwear against some of the
comparisons that now being made within APEC about who stands where
on levels of industry protection. I didn't hear any criticism
of Australia as being highly protective today or even in the corridors
of the meeting.
JOURNALIST:
Was there a consensus today amongst the leaders that the Asian crisis
has passed its worst and is on its way back up?
PRIME MINISTER:
That would be putting it too strongly. There wasn't the sense
of despair that some of the reporting of the crisis would have suggested.
But once again it is very impressive to hear from people like the
Prime Minister of Thailand and, of course, President Kim Dae Jung
of South Korea, who has personally been through so much and who is
undertaking a very fundamental economic reform program and in the
process his country is going through a lot of difficulties. Now, things
have got a little better but it is too early to say that Asia has
turned the corner. I think that would be gilding a little too much,
but there is evidence that things have bottomed. Let me put it that
way and you have to bottom in these situations before you, to mix
the metaphors, turn the corner. The lift off
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, given that the United States chose to use the APEC
stage to raise political and social issues (inaudible) How do you
see (inaudible) to try to get economic and political and social issues
separately?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think it is highly desirable that we continue to try and do
so otherwise it becomes yet another body and it loses its point and
it loses its relevance. Now, I don't know that it is the occasion
of a speech outside the formal APEC session where these comments were
made. I think it is perfectly realistic to keep trying but it is also
realistic to expect that from time to time political issues are going
to intrude. It is just a conjunction of time and circumstances that
causes that to happen.
JOURNALIST:
Now that the Summit is over what can you say about the impact of the
United States/Malaysia row on the outcome?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think it had any impact at all on the Leaders'
Declaration. I don't think it had any impact at all on the nature
and the quality of the debate. None at all. It didn't come up,
it didn't have one iota of impact and it remains as I mentioned
before, that is that we handled it in the right way having regard
to the Australian national interest and that's what I am interested
in. That's my responsibility.
JOURNALIST:
How was the relationship between Dr Mahathir and Mr Gore at the Leaders'
Summit today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they were perfectly civil to each other, but if you want to
know something about their attitude towards each other, please ask
one of them. I am not answering for the Vice ... Well, everything
was perfectly harmonious and civil, but I am not going to get into
their relationship. That is a matter for them. I mean my position
is known. The Australian Government doesn't give out the views
of other countries before stating its position on these sorts of things.
We have national interest on having a good relationship with Malaysia
and that is what I have in mind and I also have a national interest
in letting the world know where we stand on political liberty and
human rights and we have done that and that is why we were the first
country in the region to actually say something critically about Malaysia.
That seems to have been forgotten over the last couple of days. We
were ahead of any other country in having something to say.
JOURNALIST:
What do you think of the attire?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I won't be sandbagged when I walk in the door this time
by one of my sons as I was for that Canadian bomber jacket when I
came back from Vancouver last year.
[Ends]